Homosexuality is biological just like eye and skin color

[OpenYourEyes]

Im primarily looking for scientific answers so please do not move to Religion and sexuality section.

Typically, for a scientific fact and/or theory to be accepted, it must be replicated and peer-reviewed. I often see claims that homosexuality is just like eye color, skin color, gender, etc. For instance here's a claim from one forum member,

Homosexuality, like blackness, Hispanicness, or femaleness, is a biological trait, a state of being (this is backed up by several psychological, endocrinological, and neuroscientific studies).

Compare the quoted post from Haven to statements from some of the leading organization of scientistS in the world:

American Psychiatric Association...http://www.psychiatry.org/lgbt-sexual-orientation

What causes Homosexuality/Heterosexuality/Bisexuality?

No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice. Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality.

American Psychological Association...http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspx

What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

I accept that biological sex or gender, eye color, skin color are products of biology. But I'm not so sure this is the case for homosexuality or any sexual orientation for that matter.

Debate: Is it scientifically justified to say that homosexuality is caused by biology just like eye color, skin color, gender, etc?

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 16 by ttruscott]

Suggestion noted what is the supporting evidence?

The Bible, the witness of others and the witness of the indwelling Holy Spirit to me personally are the evidence upon which I base my decision to accept Christianity and PCEC in particular,

peace, Ted.

The Bible is not evidence, especially in the this forum where the attempt to use it as such is expressly against the rules. Personal witness is notoriously unreliable, especially in matters of belief. Got anything that's real?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by OpenYourEyes]

So....

I don't know about the rest of you, but it seems the case is closed, no? There is no consensus among scientists.

I say this because the thread is bound to deviate into the morality of alternative sexual preferences, which is not what htis OP is about.

[OpenYourEyes]

[Replying to post 1 by OpenYourEyes]

So....

I don't know about the rest of you, but it seems the case is closed, no? There is no consensus among scientists.

I say this because the thread is bound to deviate into the morality of alternative sexual preferences, which is not what htis OP is about.

I appreciate everyone's contribution.

Yes, for me case closed. For now i would grant that sexual orientation involves biology, and eventhough it involves environmental factors and potentially even social factors, but those factors are apparently not enough to enable us to choose our sexual orientation. Or at least there's no scientific evidence for choice.

I could offer some anecdotals from some ex-gays or bring up a woman who heterosexual throughout most of her life (up to her late 40's) found that she was attracted to one particular woman but not all women in general, but ill save that for another time.

My wish list:
- i'd like more studies done on women instead of what we commonly find where only men are used
- All genetic studies showing some link need to be replicated
- more study on 'pansexualism' or any other category of sexuality other than our common gay, bi, straight categories
- more sleep

[JoeyKnothead]

From various comments within the thread:

I find the greatest factor in homosexuality to be those upset about it.

Where two humans love one another, we ought'n fret if it was biology, or society that 'caused it, but whether they lacked the ability to tell that other'n was ugly.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Presented from an alternate perspective than OP's intent, but one I find important to tell..

Homosexuality is biological just like eye and skin color or gender?

Where biological entities sit there a-bein' it, the most rational conclusion is that's what's caused it.


While I respect the search for answers, I propose the issue of homosexuality is an issue that goes beyond one's biologicalality, into their very essenence as a human being. Why should anyone really care, other'n to offer you "validation" or "well good on you", as if the Oprah show was still on the air? You ain't valid, and to keck with you, 'cause what I think has absolutely no impact on your being a human. I might not wanna kiss ya, but I'll hug ya for a nickel. You deserve respect 'cause you give it, not 'cause of what genitalia it is you find prettiest. Heck, I've seen me some right ugly peaches, but I slurped on 'em all the same. 'Cause they was peaches, and that's what it is I do, is to peach slurp on every chance I get, if it's in church when I do it.

I reject the idea that somehow if we can find a "biological answer", that answer somehow supports homosexuals better'n there they are, THEY'RE HUMAN GOL-DANGED BEINGS. So what if what they do goes against (sound, accepted, nobody can fault it) science? Kiss you a peach, if only to get you a kiss on your own. Heck I'll pay to let me watch ya do it! Kiss you a pickle (God love ya, but I don't pay for that). Search for that one great Claussen you can't do without. OMG, I just realized I prefer Claussen to Vlasic. I must be gay.

So what your biology, your DNA, your psychological profile tells me pickles ain't for you, or peaches ain't your type. How proud have I gotta be to deny your need for 'em?

I don't care what science has to say. You're a human, that's what matters.

Just don't touch my Claussen with your Vlasic

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 19 by ttruscott]

Why would I consider the bible any more valid as evidence than any other religious text? Can you give examples of personal testimony that validate this claim?

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 19 by ttruscott]

Why would I consider the bible any more valid as evidence than any other religious text? Can you give examples of personal testimony that validate this claim?

Where do you see that I suggest the Bible has or should have any evidentiary at all to you? I'm done being personal for awhile,

peace, Ted

[KenRU]

While there may not be a consensus about the causes of homo or heterosexuality, there is little doubt that both occur in nature - amongst a variety of creatures.

So, to deny that it is biological in nature for man, is to also deny it is biological in nature in other creatures. Unless one is prepared to argue that monkeys and dolphins (and other species) choose their sexuality, it seems a rather basic conclusion to draw that it is biologically determined for man as well.

Your main point is centered on comparing animal behavior to human behavior so I will address mainly that point.

It is at times a fallacy to use animal behavior as a measure for what's natural/biological for humans. One reason being that humans and animals do not always share the same traits, like animals aren't self-aware but humans are self-aware as an innate function (all or most humans have that trait).

The only way this is relevant to this point is if you are arguing that it is natural for animals but not humans because they are self aware.

Humans are animals, it is reasonable to expect similarities in a variety of characteristics. I'm not arguing that we are the same in all ways. My point is that (with regards to sexuality - and this is inarguable) humans are animals and non-human animals who reproduce the way we do also exhibit both hetero and homsexual behavior.

Unless you care to argue that sentiency is somehow relevant to this point, I see no reason to bring it (or other differences outside of sexuality) up.

On the flip side, many male mammals, lions, etc engage in infanticide and this probably more common of an act than same-sex sexual behavior.

What does infanticide have to do with sexuality?

The point is all animal behavior should not be used to explain or generalize human behavior.

I wasn't. Agian, given that we are talking about sexuality, I was drawing your attention to those similarities (of sexuality - given the context of the OP).

As for same-sex behavior among animals, yes there are observations but observations are not explanations. That is key because homosexuality involves emotional and enduring pair-bonding towards the same-sex and not just sexual activity.

Much like the Orca who have been shown to mate for life with partners of the same sex. My point still stands.

There is no consensus that these animals are engaging in same-sex behavior as a 'sexual orientation'.

This seems to be irrelevant to the argument I am making. When an animal "mates" with one of its species that seems to pretty obvious evidence. Whether sexual or emotional both examples are found in nature. The attraction is there.

For instance, some animals that engage in same-sex acts can also be found engaging with the opposite sex, especially when reproduction is involved.

Humans exhibit this as well. You seem to be making my point for me.

So that would be bisexuality if any orientation is involved to begin with. For some animals it is an occasional thing and not normal or repeated behavior.

Humans do this as well.

Others do it as for reproductive or rearing strategies. Same-sex pair-bonds can occur for help in rearing of offspring when theres a shortage of males, etc. Fruit flies can mate with both sexes because of the inability to distinguish male and female pheromones -thats a dysfunction.

You seem to be saying the above as if it shows a difference with humans. It doesn't.

Not sure the point your making.

Not knowing the cause doesn't mean that there isn't evidence suggesting an answer.

What evidence?

Humans are animals. Our closest relatives in the animal kingdom exhibit the exact same behavior variances as we do.

I await your logic as to why this is not compelling.

For it to be a scientific answer it must be testable and reproducible as well as peer-reviewed/accepted. Anything short of that is conjecture at best.

Not knowing the cause does not make it untrue.

Given that homosexuality is observed in nature and with humans, the best you can argue (as I see it) is that you don't have a better answer for its cause and wish to ignore the mountains of examples in the animal kingdom.

Please provide a reason why one should ignore the mountains of examples in nature and believe it is not biologically driven?

-all the best

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 1 by OpenYourEyes]

So....

I don't know about the rest of you, but it seems the case is closed, no? There is no consensus among scientists.

I say this because the thread is bound to deviate into the morality of alternative sexual preferences, which is not what htis OP is about.

There is consensus though.

1. There is consensus that it is not a choice
2. There is consensus that it is biological

What there is not consensus on is the exact biological cause. This is becoming apparent from the complexity of factors involved. It is not a simple switch that one can turn on and off like hair or eye color. There is no consensus as to what causes ALS but it doesn't mean that ALS is a choice.

[OpenYourEyes]

The only way this is relevant to this point is if you are arguing that it is natural for animals but not humans because they are self aware.

Humans are animals, it is reasonable to expect similarities in a variety of characteristics. I'm not arguing that we are the same in all ways. My point is that (with regards to sexuality - and this is inarguable) humans are animals and non-human animals who reproduce the way we do also exhibit both hetero and homsexual behavior.

So we both agree then that not all human and animal behavior are alike which i take to mean that we cant always use non-human animal behavior to infer from or understand human behavior.

In regards to the last sentence of your point i agree that humans and non-human animals engage in same-sex behavior, my point is that doesnt necessarily mean homsexuality. Take for instance someone who is engaging in same-sex behavior just to experiment, or gay men who marry women and reproduce, etc. There is no real sexual or strong attraction involved in the example i just mentioned and the latter example even involves a long term commitment but still no sexual attraction since the person is involved in a hetero marriage for other reasons. In the same way, explanations other than 'sexual orientation' can be used for non-human animals who engage in same-sex behaviors. Refer to my linked sources for the non sexual orientation related reasons in post #4 and 7.

On the flip side, many male mammals, lions, etc engage in infanticide and this probably more common of an act than same-sex sexual behavior.

What does infanticide have to do with sexuality?

Just because it's natural or common trait of certain animals, like male lions, doesnt mean it's normal for humans.

As for same-sex behavior among animals, yes there are observations but observations are not explanations. That is key because homosexuality involves emotional and enduring pair-bonding towards the same-sex and not just sexual activity.

Much like the Orca who have been shown to mate for life with partners of the same sex. My point still stands.

- This is an observation but not an explanation and that's important here since not all same-sex behavior is an indication of sexual orientation.

-secondly the emotional component of sexual orientation is not provable.

- third, i question what controls are put in place to observe a lifetime of animal behavior as opposed to a "long-lasting" behavior. I bring that up because who's to say that the whale will not seek another occasional mate or leave for another mate of the opposite sex after a long period of time. Im also skeptical of your claim because killer whales are polygamous. Refer to sources below..

Sea World observation - last sentence..
http://seaworld.org/animal-info/animal- ... roduction/

Handbook of Marine Mammals: The Second Book of Dolphins and the Porpoises By Dr. Sam H. Ridgway
Pg. 292, 2nd to last paragraph..
https://books.google.com/books?id=At4jW ... us&f=false

There is no consensus that these animals are engaging in same-sex behavior as a 'sexual orientation'.

This seems to be irrelevant to the argument I am making. When an animal "mates" with one of its species that seems to pretty obvious evidence. Whether sexual or emotional both examples are found in nature. The attraction is there.

Well both emotional and sexual should be involved otherwise its all about sex and therefore not a 'sexual 'orientation'.

Also, same-sex behavior between non-human animals is rare. In those rare cases that it does occur you assume there's a sexual attraction towards the other mate as opposed to all of the other alternate explanations, like with same-sex behaviorin fruit flies it involves a dysfunction to distinguish male pheremones from female pheromones. Is that an attraction to another because that other person was of the same-sex? Of course not! In the cases where there are no clear dysfunction, you are speculating at best and certain factors will likely remain unproven. The quote below summarizes much of my point.

The term homosexuality should be limited to the human species, for in animals the investigator can ascertain only motor behavior. As soon as he interprets the animal's motivation he is applying human psychodynamics--a risky, if not foolhardy scientific approach.

From Dr. Charles Socarides

Others do it as for reproductive or rearing strategies. Same-sex pair-bonds can occur for help in rearing of offspring when theres a shortage of males, etc. Fruit flies can mate with both sexes because of the inability to distinguish male and female pheromones -thats a dysfunction.

You seem to be saying the above as if it shows a difference with humans. It doesn't.

Not sure the point your making.

All of the above can occur without homosexuality being a factor.

Not knowing the cause doesn't mean that there isn't evidence suggesting an answer.

What evidence?

Humans are animals. Our closest relatives in the animal kingdom exhibit the exact same behavior variances as we do.

I await your logic as to why this is not compelling.

My logic stems from biologist Bruce Bagemihl who was the first to document and compile data on non-human animal same sex behavior:

Any account of homosexuality and transgender animals is also necessarily an account of human interpretations of these phenomena....We are in the dark about the internal experience of the animal participants: as a result, the biases and limitations of the human observer--in both the gathering and interpretation of data--come to the forefront in this situation.....With people we can often speak directly to individuals (or read written accounts)....With animals in contrast, we can often directly observe their sexual (and allied) behaviors, but can only infer or interpret their meanings and motivations.

From...Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity -pg. 2 going into pg. 3

For it to be a scientific answer it must be testable and reproducible as well as peer-reviewed/accepted. Anything short of that is conjecture at best.

Not knowing the cause does not make it untrue.

Given that homosexuality is observed in nature and with humans, the best you can argue (as I see it) is that you don't have a better answer for its cause and wish to ignore the mountains of examples in the animal kingdom.

Please provide a reason why one should ignore the mountains of examples in nature and believe it is not biologically driven?

-all the best

If nature is involved, we should find evidence in the biology of humans. Thus far we dont have a definitive and replicated group of studies that shows that. Besides that, by definition sexual orientation involves interpersonal factors which only come into play after birth as we experience others.