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.

[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.

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.

I am not sure about that. I think there is a scale, while there are more people in the 'grey scale' than will admit it, there are extremes on both ends.

[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.

I am not sure about that. I think there is a scale, while there are more people in the 'grey scale' than will admit it, there are extremes on both ends.

Is the 'grey scale' those with tendencies? Sorry - didn't follow - could you elaborate, por favor?

[otseng]

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.

I don't believe it's exclusively a choice either. There are other factors at play.

But, basically I want to lay to rest the notion that homosexuality and being black are on the same level.

[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.

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.

I am not sure about that. I think there is a scale, while there are more people in the 'grey scale' than will admit it, there are extremes on both ends.

Is the 'grey scale' those with tendencies? Sorry - didn't follow - could you elaborate, por favor?

Not everyone has equal tendencies. There are the extremes of 'would not touch the other/same' sex no matter what to those in the middle (equally attractted to both sexes).

[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.

I am not sure about that. I think there is a scale, while there are more people in the 'grey scale' than will admit it, there are extremes on both ends.

Is the 'grey scale' those with tendencies? Sorry - didn't follow - could you elaborate, por favor?

Not everyone has equal tendencies. There are the extremes of 'would not touch the other/same' sex no matter what to those in the middle (equally attractted to both sexes).

So, you agree with my friend that (those in the middle) many ARE attracted to both sexes?

[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.

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.

I am not sure about that. I think there is a scale, while there are more people in the 'grey scale' than will admit it, there are extremes on both ends.

Is the 'grey scale' those with tendencies? Sorry - didn't follow - could you elaborate, por favor?

Not everyone has equal tendencies. There are the extremes of 'would not touch the other/same' sex no matter what to those in the middle (equally attractted to both sexes).

So, you agree with my friend that (those in the middle) many ARE attracted to both sexes?

To varying degrees.. and I suspect that some of that is culturally inspired, and then I suspect that many of those people who are very very vocal about being anti-gay are those people who are fighting their own feelings.

[micatala]

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.

I don't believe it's exclusively a choice either. There are other factors at play.

But, basically I want to lay to rest the notion that homosexuality and being black are on the same level.

I would certainly agree that they are not genetically determined to the same degree. If that is what you mean by the 'same level' then we are on the same page.

I also agree there are several factors at play with respect to homosexuality and that some of the non-genetic factors might even be more influential than the genes.

I also agree there could be a spectrum effect (or grey areas) where some are very definitely gay or straight, but others are more in between somewhere. For those who are 'in between', we might say they have some 'choice'. However, we should distinguish between choosing one's behavior and choosing one's orientation. It may be that even those who are 'sort of gay' do not have a choice in being 'sort of gay' but only in whether they choose to behave in correspondence with their gay inclinations or not.

[Cathar1950]

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?

What level is being black on?
We can argue that being white is a both genetics and environment with a few thousand years of inbreeding. Is being black or white on the same level and why would sexuality be any different?
If we are going with sexual attraction, which seems to be on a continuum should we also look at masculinity and femininity? Who is a sissy and who isn't might be just as irrational.

[Jester]

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.

This presents to me an opportunity to mention my biggest issue with the homosexuality argument. Just to make it clear: I'm a big believer in freedom, and don't wish to take freedoms away from the homosexual community. I do, however, have three issues with the argument that such is acceptable on the grounds that we humans have no control over our sexuality.
First, because I believe it is untrue. Some people change sexualities in the course of their lives. (I'm not trying to imply that it would take less than a herculean effort, but don't feel that this point should be overlooked).
Second, because its a poor appeal to equality. This seems to be the argument "don't be mad at the gays, they can't help being the way that they are". To me, that sounds a great deal more judgmental, and less reasonable, than "they should have the right to live as they want regardless of our opinions."
Third, and this is the one that strikes me the hardest personally, I don't like the suggestion that people aren't in control of our personalities. I don't pretend that changing who we are is in any way simple, quick, or easy. On the other hand, I see only negativity resulting from the idea that it is completely impossible. That seems to lend itself very nicely to a lot of excuse-making.
Personally, I'd rather the homosexuals continued to point out that we have no right to dictate their lives for them. The idea of free choice is supported by both the Christian religion and (as far as I know) all the governments of those represented on this site. That seems the more legitimate argument to me.

[Goat]

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.

This presents to me an opportunity to mention my biggest issue with the homosexuality argument. Just to make it clear: I'm a big believer in freedom, and don't wish to take freedoms away from the homosexual community. I do, however, have three issues with the argument that such is acceptable on the grounds that we humans have no control over our sexuality.

First, because I believe it is untrue. Some people change sexualities in the course of their lives. (I'm not trying to imply that it would take less than a herculean effort, but don't feel that this point should be overlooked).

I disagree with this statement. I would say that people change their sexual behavior, but not their sexuality. There are a certain number of people that fall in the middle of sexual attraction, and those people's behavior can be shaped by experience and by social expectations. The migration of people in heterosexual
relationships to homosexual ones often can be attributed to social expectations and self denial also.

Second, because its a poor appeal to equality. This seems to be the argument "don't be mad at the gays, they can't help being the way that they are". To me, that sounds a great deal more judgmental, and less reasonable, than "they should have the right to live as they want regardless of our opinions."

That sounds to me like a straw man. I don't see that arguement being made at all.

Third, and this is the one that strikes me the hardest personally, I don't like the suggestion that people aren't in control of our personalities. I don't pretend that changing who we are is in any way simple, quick, or easy. On the other hand, I see only negativity resulting from the idea that it is completely impossible. That seems to lend itself very nicely to a lot of excuse-making.
Personally, I'd rather the homosexuals continued to point out that we have no right to dictate their lives for them. The idea of free choice is supported by both the Christian religion and (as far as I know) all the governments of those represented on this site. That seems the more legitimate argument to me.

While we can control aspects of our personality,I have yet to see that all aspects of our personality can be controlled by us, and I don't see any indication that sexual orientation can be controlled by us. The whole industry of 'ex-gay' is a testimony to the failure of attempting to change. There is an extremely high rate of drop out, reverting to homosexual behavior and suicide in these 'programs'.