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?

[ScioVeritas]

A gay person does not have a choice; so from that viewpoint it does correlate with the non-choice of skin colour or biological gender.

How are you defining "gay person"? If you're referring to being attracted to someone then I will agree that that isn't a choice. You don't choose who you're attracted to. However you do choose who you sleep with. That is a choice.

As a person with dark skin and brown eyes I can't choose to not "act" on my traits because they are inherent and everyone can see them. However if I have a desire to fly a plane and then I act on that desire and become a pilot then I've made a choice to act on my desire.

So if you're defining "gay person" as someone who is attracted to a member of the same sex then I will concede that that is not a choice. However there is a choice involved when you act on that attraction, and there is no scientific evidence to prove that you have to act on every desire you have.

[MasterOfOnesOwnMind]

A gay person does not have a choice; so from that viewpoint it does correlate with the non-choice of skin colour or biological gender.

How are you defining "gay person"? If you're referring to being attracted to someone then I will agree that that isn't a choice. You don't choose who you're attracted to. However you do choose who you sleep with. That is a choice.

As a person with dark skin and brown eyes I can't choose to not "act" on my traits because they are inherent and everyone can see them. However if I have a desire to fly a plane and then I act on that desire and become a pilot then I've made a choice to act on my desire.

So if you're defining "gay person" as someone who is attracted to a member of the same sex then I will concede that that is not a choice. However there is a choice involved when you act on that attraction, and there is no scientific evidence to prove that you have to act on every desire you have.

Yes just the same as you have a choice not to sleep with a member of the opposite sex. I don't see what you're getting at here.

A gay person doesn't have to sleep with the opposite sex to be gay; but if they do sleep with the opposite sex they're still gay.....

If you are straight, then your desire as a man will be to be with a woman. If you're gay then you desire as a man will be to be with a man. Having a choice with who you sleep with does not change the fact that you have no choice who you're attracted to.

[MasterOfOnesOwnMind]

[Replying to MasterOfOnesOwnMind]

What exactly is being debated, here? Not having a choice or biological tendencies? Which choices? Behavior? Feelings?

The Kinsey Scale/test shows that many people who are bi or straight or gay do indeed have a choice and make it at some level. Do people have a choice on what they feel? Sometimes. Certainly millions of people through the history of our species have made choices about expressing their own sexuality against their true feelings.

Also, if Steve cuts off Mark's legs and imprisons him, Mark ain't got a choice in the matter, but how does that relate to the nonchoice of eye color? What's the difference e in a person choosing to never express their true sexual desires and someone choosing a sexual identity? If a straight person chose to behave as gay (as many gays have chosen to behave straight), what exactly is that person choosing?

Chris feels heterosexual, but for whatever complex reasons decides to always act gay. Is he choosing to "be gay" or is he choosing to "act gay?" What is he choosing if not his own expression of his sexuality regardless of what he feels? What do we call that?

I'm not familiar with the kinsley scale yet, so I will hold off on that topic for now.

As far as your "Steve cuts off Mark's legs and imprisons him" analogy, that is forcible confinement and not comparable to "non-choice" biologically speaking imo. If Steve raped Mark, does that make Mark gay? No, because he was forced into doing it.

Theres a word for someone "acting gay" and its called flamboyant, so I wouldn't say he's choosing to be gay or choosing to act gay. And to even say if he was choosing to act flamboyant, one must know him personally to make a proper assessment. Perhaps he's acting flamboyant because he craves attention and feels thats the best way, or perhaps its just in his nature to express himself that way.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to OpenYourEyes]

I'm just telling you the facts. You are supplying what appears to me to be a dangerously anthropomorphic analysis that assume humans are, at base, radically different from all other animals, a shaky assumption.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 52 by MasterOfOnesOwnMind]

It seems to me that a person is what she practices.

If a person has continual desire to murder, but never acts on that desire and never murders anyone, she is not a murderer, IMO.

Let's try that EXACT reasoning with gayness:

If a person has a continual desire to have intercourse with someone of his own gender, but never acts on that desire to have homosexual sex, he is not gay. Oops!!

Let's try again:

If a person has a continual desire to practice medicine on animals, but never acts on that desire and never performs any medicine on animals, she IS a veterinarian?? Hmmm.

What's going on, here?

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 52 by MasterOfOnesOwnMind]

It seems to me that a person is what she practices.

If a person has continual desire to murder, but never acts on that desire and never murders anyone, she is not a murderer, IMO.

Let's try that EXACT reasoning with gayness:

If a person has a continual desire to have intercourse with someone of his own gender, but never acts on that desire to have homosexual sex, he is not gay. Oops!!

Let's try again:

If a person has a continual desire to practice medicine on animals, but never acts on that desire and never performs any medicine on animals, she IS a veterinarian?? Hmmm.

What's going on, here?

That is a fallacious debasement of definitions. A murderer is defined by the action of committing murder, a homosexual may (or may not, depending on the semantics) be defined by the action of homosexual intercourse or by the feelings engendered by sexual preference.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 52 by MasterOfOnesOwnMind]

It seems to me that a person is what she practices.

False (for the context of this thread).

If a person has continual desire to murder, but never acts on that desire and never murders anyone, she is not a murderer, IMO.

False analogy.

If a person is hungry but never eats, are they hungry?

Let's try that EXACT reasoning with gayness:

If a person has a continual desire to have intercourse with someone of his own gender, but never acts on that desire to have homosexual sex, he is not gay. Oops!!

Yes, they are.

You've sabotaged you're own argument here. If you are heterosexual, and never act on it, are you still a hetereosexual?

Oops?

Let's try again:

If a person has a continual desire to practice medicine on animals, but never acts on that desire and never performs any medicine on animals, she IS a veterinarian??

Do they have a degree?

Hmmm.

Hmm, is right. Your logic is incredibly faulty.

What's going on, here?

Seems to me that you haven't thought his through.

By you're own logic, straight men/women who don't have sex can't be considered straight. How bizarre.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 40 by MasterOfOnesOwnMind]

Thank you for being needlessly harsh. I appreciate you exposing your rash nature.

I'm not harsh, if someone is going to say something so incredibly ignorant, I have no problem calling them out on it.

Is that what you do? Say absurd things you know aren't true and then try and call people out for calling you out???

Moderator Comment

Please review the Rules.

If you don't like the content of a post, talk about that. Do not address the personality or intent of the writer. Please pay attention to the rules; do not make negative comments about posters in here.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 57 by KenRU]

I'm trying to get at why we apply definitions differently in different "threads." I'm not arguing the point, and I agree that my gay friends are gay and my straight friends are straight regardless of if they only have sex with people that go against their desires or not.

I'm trying to understand why we have become so unwilling to even discuss the terms and how they are applied. What if a person "identifies" with being a vegetarian but eats meat. Isn't that person a vegetarian because of their own internal desire to be one? If a hypochondriac always believes he has influenza, do we agree and say that he does have influenza because that's his true, real, continual feeling?

I have been greatly affected by my research into the Kinsey scale/test. According to your position and most on this thread, because 80% of us ARE a mixture of hetero and homo, we should start demanding that almost everyone be called bisexual? I'm fine with being called straight even though the Kinsey test says I got a bit of homo going on. Do the commenters on this thread want me and 80% of the population to start identifying our percentages of hetero versus homo?

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 56 by H.sapiens]

Exactly. You say "may or may not be depending on...:" That's exactly what I'm asking. Why is it "may or may not be"? What exactly does it depend on?