Homosexuality: Nature or choice

[achilles12604]

Leaving aside the free will argument for the moment, I would like to investigate the evidence for homosexuality being a result of genetics or biochemistry, or personal choice.

What evidence is there that the homosexual individual is controlled by his genetics or biochemistry and must therefore be homosexual?

What evidence is there that the homosexual individual is such simply by choice outside of other driving factors?

Please feel free to add to the criteria of the OP if you feel there are other options I missed.

[otseng]

Also, when it comes to twins, even with identical twins, although the chances of the second member of a set being homosexual is much much higher if one of the twins is homosexual, there is not a 100% correlation.

Good point. This is further evidence that it cannot be exclusively genetic.

First and for most, the "environmental cause" position is not that homosexuals purposely choose to be that way, but that it is an unconscious response to something in childhood. Most who take this position (which I do, with certain stipulations) also take the position that sexuality is somewhat malleable in general. A denial that heterosexuals can, with great effort, change their sexuality is not to be assumed.

I'm also in general agreement with this.

If homosexuality has a genetic component, the genes or combinations of genes could be recessive.

If the recessive genes from the parents produce a homosexual child, then that gene would be effectively stopped at that generation.

Only if sexual behavior of offspring is exclusively homosexual.

Granted. But I would think that there is a lower chance of a homosexual to have a biological child than a heterosexual. And so this would also have a filtering effect.

This would act as a filter to prevent the gene from going to the next generation. Since this filter is in place, it would cause a decrease over time.

Not only would sexual behavior need to be exclusively homosexual the parents would also need to have only one offspring. All it takes is one slip up or additional non homosexual siblings. The criteria for filtering to work is finely set, too fine to be a real filter to stop any genetic component be passed from generation to generation ad infinitum.

I'm not saying that the filter stops everything. And I don't know either how much the filter stops. But, it does have some limiting effect.

The recessive gene could certainly be passed on to other children. But, when the gene manifests itself in homosexual proclivity, then the filter would come into play.

[otseng]

We need not care or know why the cause of homosexuality any more than we need nor care why the colour of someone skin.

It might not be too important in the grand scale of things, but that's what we're debating here in this thread - the cause of homosexuality.

This thread started because I did not agree with achilles12604 that homosexuals are genetically gay. I do not believe it is on the same level as someone being black because of genetics.

[Goat]

Also, when it comes to twins, even with identical twins, although the chances of the second member of a set being homosexual is much much higher if one of the twins is homosexual, there is not a 100% correlation.

Good point. This is further evidence that it cannot be exclusively genetic.

I think it is developmental, with the environment of the womb being a high factor. That is because there is a 50% corrolation, not just a 5% corrolation

[micatala]

If a person sexually preferred men and they were a man (XY sex genes) then they would be labelled homosexual.

If that person had XX genes then they would be a woman and a women who prefers men would be labelled heterosexual.

Are you saying the the XY chromosomes would have a factor in determing the sexual proclivity of a person? If so, I would disagree with that.

If you are simply saying that if a XY person sexually prefers another XY person, then he would be a homosexual, then that would simply be a truism and not a cause of homosexuality.
.....

That's my whole point because it is quite simply sexual discrimination.

I would also say that bans on gay marriage amount to a violation of freedom of religion. The usual non-religious reasons for banning gay marriage simply do not hold water. If the only reason for implementing a law is a religious reason, then, in my view, this amounts to establishment of religion.

With the same brain patterns but in a different genetic body, they would not be considered homosexual by society. We need not care or know why the cause of homosexuality any more than we need nor care why the colour of someone skin.

Does understanding where the colour of someone's skin come from make racism any more justified ? A person is black because they have black skin is a truism too: am I then justified in discriminating on the grounds that they have black skin as long as I ask the question of the origin of the colour.

I agree.

People ask apparently thoughtful questions about the origin of homosexuality as if it actually matters one iota and Christians (and Muslims) are particularly untrustworthy in this matter on this one subject. There is a credibility gap that has yet to be bridged. Where a group is untrustworthy in its stance then that makes it justified for me to ask why they are asking this question. In a way, "Why do you want to know ?" is mirrored in the policy of "Don't ask, don't tell."

Christianity is changing for the better but it has along way to go. Maybe in 50 years time someone can ask this question here and it won't be dissected on the subtext. Today, no.

The reason the issue of causes comes up is because some who argue against gay rights point to the "condition" being "un-natural" or "aberrant" or a "choice." In the latter case, it is then compared to alcohol abuse, adultery, murder, etc. or other things which are considered a choice, or which, even if there are genetic or environmental factors in play, have negative consequences. If the case can be made the homosexuality is 'natural', it takes some of the rationale away from anti-gay activists. It also can be used to make the case that, if it is natural, it is somehow the responsibility of God.

But you are right. Whether it is natural or not, absent any compelling societal harm, there is no need to prohibit or regulate gay marriage or homosexual behavior in general.

[nygreenguy]

Good point. This is further evidence that it cannot be exclusively genetic.

Not necessairly. The environment can control the expression of genes. Just because their genetic code is identical doesnt me it will necessairly be expressed identically.


However, I do believe current research shows that its a combination of genes and the environment.

[Chimp]

--Sorry for the edit...some posts popped up ...adding quote for better context..

I do not believe it is on the same level as someone being black because of genetics

Left-handedness would be a better analogue when discussing genetics, because, it
is inherited as a recessive trait and there are degrees of left-handedness. There are
degrees of handedness in general.

Strangely enough, lefties have historically been viewed as unnatural, evil, sinister.

In fact, sinister means left in Latin.

Statistically, the incidence of homosexuality and left-handedness are comparable.
Obviously there is a lot of study going on, which may or may not make a correlation,
but it suggests there's a greater likelihood than not.

[Cathar1950]

Also, when it comes to twins, even with identical twins, although the chances of the second member of a set being homosexual is much much higher if one of the twins is homosexual, there is not a 100% correlation.

Good point. This is further evidence that it cannot be exclusively genetic.

I think it is developmental, with the environment of the womb being a high factor. That is because there is a 50% corrolation, not just a 5% corrolation

The environment of the womb might have genetic factors and hormones are a part of the environment which do cause changes.
It is most likely both and complex.

[otseng]

3 civil pages on the topic of homosexuality. Is this a record?

So, would it be fair to say then that there is general agreement that homosexuality cannot be caused exclusively be genetics? And if so, would this also mean that it is not on the same level as someone being black?

[Goat]

3 civil pages on the topic of homosexuality. Is this a record?

So, would it be fair to say then that there is general agreement that homosexuality cannot be caused exclusively be genetics? And if so, would this also mean that it is not on the same level as someone being black?

There is a difference between saying something is not exclusively by genetics, and saying it is a 'choice'. Like I said, brain development can play a factor, and that can be different even between identical twins.

If it was exclusively a 'choice', then the coorlation between identical twins that were not raised in the same environment would not be so extremely high.

[justifyothers]

3 civil pages on the topic of homosexuality. Is this a record?

So, would it be fair to say then that there is general agreement that homosexuality cannot be caused exclusively be genetics? And if so, would this also mean that it is not on the same level as someone being black?

There is a difference between saying something is not exclusively by genetics, and saying it is a 'choice'. Like I said, brain development can play a factor, and that can be different even between identical twins.

If it was exclusively a 'choice', then the coorlation between identical twins that were not raised in the same environment would not be so extremely high.

I think it has to be there genetically in order to be influenced environmentally. For example:
Three of my lesbian friends in CA were all molested by men as young girls. They pretty much hate men (all men). Yet, we know lots of girls were molested that have not become gay. And we know gay people have not all been molested.

My freind thinks everyone has the 'capability' to be gay and that some just suppress the feelings, while others endulge them.