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.

[Fallibleone]

I'm of the opinion that sexuality is not set in stone, that there are not fixed positions - gay, bisexual and straight - so much as a spectrum along which some of us slide throughout our lives. Also, I am of the opinion that sexuality cannot be accurately judged all the time by sexual behaviour. So whereas I believe that thre may be a genetic element to homosexuality, I also think that many other factors contribute.

[otseng]

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.

Yes, this is what I mean. And this was the context when achilles12604 and I was discussing that lead to this thread's creation.

Being black is determined exclusively by genetics. And being gay is not determined exclusively by genetics.

[Cathar1950]

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.

Yes, this is what I mean. And this was the context when achilles12604 and I was discussing that lead to this thread's creation.

Being black is determined exclusively by genetics. And being gay is not determined exclusively by genetics.

I am wondering what we mean by being black is genetic.
It seems skin color is a human variation as is also conditioned by the environment.
A person born with dark skin will get darker if they are in more light and lighter if they are not.
Levels of hormones of the mother has caused changes which may be genetic in the mother. Culture and experiences are also determining factors while behavior is leaned disposition may not be learned but have a genetic or some other determining factor.
It sounds like you are trying to open a door where somehow it is different being born black then being homosexual as if it was all right to be black because it is genetic while looking for a way to blame the homosexual for being homosexual.
Is injustice and inequality only wrong if it is genetic?

[otseng]

I am wondering what we mean by being black is genetic.

I mean their race, not simply their skin color or acquired behavior. Being black would mean having genes common in that race that are characteristic among that group. Skin color would be one such characteristic.

It sounds like you are trying to open a door where somehow it is different being born black then being homosexual as if it was all right to be black because it is genetic while looking for a way to blame the homosexual for being homosexual.

I'm not blaming homosexuals for their sexual proclivity.

But, I do not think that when people argue about homosexuality that they can compare it to blacks, which is a fairly common argument that I see.

Is injustice and inequality only wrong if it is genetic?

Injustice and inequality would be a separate issue from what is the cause of homosexuality. But, in short, no, it is not only wrong if it is genetic.

[micatala]

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.

Yes, this is what I mean. And this was the context when achilles12604 and I was discussing that lead to this thread's creation.

Being black is determined exclusively by genetics. And being gay is not determined exclusively by genetics.

I am wondering what we mean by being black is genetic.
It seems skin color is a human variation as is also conditioned by the environment.
A person born with dark skin will get darker if they are in more light and lighter if they are not.
Levels of hormones of the mother has caused changes which may be genetic in the mother. Culture and experiences are also determining factors while behavior is leaned disposition may not be learned but have a genetic or some other determining factor.
It sounds like you are trying to open a door where somehow it is different being born black then being homosexual as if it was all right to be black because it is genetic while looking for a way to blame the homosexual for being homosexual.
Is injustice and inequality only wrong if it is genetic?

I think we all agree that a given person, whatever their "natural" skin color, will or can experience color variation based on the environment. Still, we each have a natural genetic color that is not likely to completely change based on the environment. My ancestors are from Europe, and no matter how much time I spend in the sun, I am not going to become a "black" person. In fact, it might be better to think of being "black" as having a genetic definition rather than a 'color' definition, with the color being a sympton of the genes.

Also, I think you are reading into otseng's position. I don't recall that he has made any statements which imply that if a condition is not genetically determined, then it is OK to 'blame them' for the condition or discriminate against them on the basis of that condition.

This thread is really only about describing or discovering as best we can what the causes of homosexuality are, and to what extent if any it is a choice, and whether all or some or none of those who identify as gay had some 'choice' in the matter.

[micatala]

But, I do not think that when people argue about homosexuality that they can compare it to blacks, which is a fairly common argument that I see.

I will disagree with this one comment to some extent. We agree that the causes are not the same. We may not agree on the extent to which some gays 'choose' their orientation. My view is that probably the vast majority do not. Even if being gay is not genetic, I think for many gays it is an in born condition, possibly caused by conditions within the womb, that they have no control over.

Althought it is not an exact analogy, I think the societal responses to each of these has been similar in many ways, and pretty much just as unjustified in each case. I think much of the former (and even present) prejudice against blacks is simply a 'they are different' phenomenon, and this and other factors led to slavery and the horrendous discrimination that occurred in the U.S. Although religion was not the source of the prejudice, it was often used to justify it.

With gays, it is probably fair to say that more of the source of the prejudice is religious, but I also think a lot of it is just 'they are not like us.' Certainly a lot of anti-gay violence is done by people who are not particularly religiously motivated, or even religious at all. They are just hateful.

However, in both cases there is certainly prejudice and the people who suffer the discrimination are suffering because of 'who they are,' with perhaps some caveat for a small number of gays. Even gays who have never been observed or known to have gay sex are discriminated against. Often, even people who are simply suspected of being gay suffer discrimination. We can't really say people are discriminating against gays simply for their 'behavior.'

[Vanguard]

But, I do not think that when people argue about homosexuality that they can compare it to blacks, which is a fairly common argument that I see.

Part of the problem in comparing "blackness" to homosexuality is managing the confounding variable of societal influences on whether a person ends up being gay. There is no such thing as "growing into" having black skin as this is determined manifestly even before birth.

Furthermore, this blackness does not substantively change over time. As micatala has suggested conversely, I can stay in the sun till the day I die and the only skin pigment change I will experience is red and even that change will pass with time only to return to my former "condition". That cannot be said for many who have claimed being gay but who have since turned to heterosexuality and now claim an orientation conversion. Though small in numbers these few folks bar the way of those who would argue that sexual orientation is purely genetic.

[Jester]

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.

I suppose that stating our respective opinions is about as far as we can take this one. There isn't much evidence to go on. To make it clear, I'll rephrase my belief to say that I believe that all people lie somewhere in the middle.
By my reasoning, unless we can establish that identical twins develop the same sexuality in fully 100% of cases (regardless of their upbrinings), then there is a non-genetic factor. That, in itself, infers a certain amount of sexual maleability in humans.

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.

This is defintely a straw man if we are arguing the exact nature of homosexuality on a purely rational basis (I agree that we should be, but, let's face it, this is an emotional issue). I mentioned this because statements that sexuality is somewhat malleable are often countered with accusations of bigotry or oppression. I did this, not because I suspected (in any way) that you would do as much, but felt near-certain that someone else would jump in some such accusation if I did not. As such, I'd happly drop the point as it pertains to the actual topic question.

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'.

I'm not in favor of these particular programs (I don't know much about their approach, and can say very little about them myself). I would, however, like to point out that I've allready taken the position that this is anything but an easy matter. Change is extremely difficult at best (I previously used the word 'Herculean' to describe the required effort). This, however, does not prove that there are select things about our personalities that are simply 100% out of our control. I believe that a certain amount of change can take place (whether or not it should is a different argument), and have yet to see any scientific reason why sexuality should be included as one of those "unmovable" parts of the personality. I do not mean to belittle those who have tried and failed, but I do not feel that my statement does so. Drug rehabilitation has also resulted in drop-outs and suicides. These kinds of changes, assuming one feels the need to make them, are anything but easy. They deserve far more reverence than many give them, but this does not establish for me that they are simply impossible. Some claim to have changed, and I feel that we must take this into account as well.

[Goat]

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.

I suppose that stating our respective opinions is about as far as we can take this one. There isn't much evidence to go on. To make it clear, I'll rephrase my belief to say that I believe that all people lie somewhere in the middle.
By my reasoning, unless we can establish that identical twins develop the same sexuality in fully 100% of cases (regardless of their upbrinings), then there is a non-genetic factor. That, in itself, infers a certain amount of sexual maleability in humans.

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.

This is defintely a straw man if we are arguing the exact nature of homosexuality on a purely rational basis (I agree that we should be, but, let's face it, this is an emotional issue). I mentioned this because statements that sexuality is somewhat malleable are often countered with accusations of bigotry or oppression. I did this, not because I suspected (in any way) that you would do as much, but felt near-certain that someone else would jump in some such accusation if I did not. As such, I'd happly drop the point as it pertains to the actual topic question.

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'.

I'm not in favor of these particular programs (I don't know much about their approach, and can say very little about them myself). I would, however, like to point out that I've allready taken the position that this is anything but an easy matter. Change is extremely difficult at best (I previously used the word 'Herculean' to describe the required effort). This, however, does not prove that there are select things about our personalities that are simply 100% out of our control. I believe that a certain amount of change can take place (whether or not it should is a different argument), and have yet to see any scientific reason why sexuality should be included as one of those "unmovable" parts of the personality. I do not mean to belittle those who have tried and failed, but I do not feel that my statement does so. Drug rehabilitation has also resulted in drop-outs and suicides. These kinds of changes, assuming one feels the need to make them, are anything but easy. They deserve far more reverence than many give them, but this does not establish for me that they are simply impossible. Some claim to have changed, and I feel that we must take this into account as well.

My reasoning about identical twins that that since it ISN'T a 100% correlation, but it is about a 50% correlation of those twins that are separated at birth, there are factors that are beyond the control of the environment about half the time. There are factors above and beyond mere environment (post womb at least).

I will agree with you.. this subject should be addressed devoid of emotion. It is more of an intellectual curiosity for me though. I don't have any markers in the game, except for the general philosophical concept of 'equality'.

[Jester]

My reasoning about identical twins that that since it ISN'T a 100% correlation, but it is about a 50% correlation of those twins that are separated at birth, there are factors that are beyond the control of the environment about half the time. There are factors above and beyond mere environment (post womb at least).

I'll agree that there seems to be a genetic predisposition. I only take issue with the idea that genetic predisposition are tantamount to fate (which doesn't seem to be what you are arguing at all).

I will agree with you.. this subject should be addressed devoid of emotion. It is more of an intellectual curiosity for me though. I don't have any markers in the game, except for the general philosophical concept of 'equality'.

I'm definitely with you on the matter of equality. That definitely seems to be the main issue in any practical way.