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]

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.

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. 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.

[Goat]

I am in general agreement with micatala's points.

Here's my thoughts on homosexuality being caused purely genetically. If it is an inheritable trait, then I would expect homosexuality to decrease over time. If homosexuals only partner with the same sex, they could not reproduce between themselves. Since they cannot reproduce between themselves and pass the inheritable genes down, these genes would not be passed to the next generation. But homosexuality does not seem to decrease over time, but if anything, is increasing.

So there must be some other cause of homosexuality other than purely genetic.

I'm not ruling out that there can be some genetic factor, but it cannot be the sole reason.

Homosexuality could easily be a recessive gene that only shows itself if there are two recessive alleles (so if you have two heterozygous parents, there would be only a 1:4 chance of the child being homosexual but a 1:2 chance of some homosexual allele being passed down). This gives the gene at least a chance of surviving for quite some time. Add in the fact that many homosexuals did indeed reproduce because of societal pressure and it becomes entirely possible for homosexuality to be genetic and be perpetuated.

Personally, I believe genetics to be a very large factor in homosexuality, but it is possible for it to be brought on by how a child is raised. If the upbringing of a child can cause them to suppress homosexuality, then it is only logical that it can have the opposite effect on a straight child.

There are also hormonal factors in development that can cause changes. When it comes to male homosexuals, they found that there is a tendency for the homosexual men to be the second or third male born.

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.

[nygreenguy]

I am in general agreement with micatala's points.

Here's my thoughts on homosexuality being caused purely genetically. If it is an inheritable trait, then I would expect homosexuality to decrease over time. If homosexuals only partner with the same sex, they could not reproduce between themselves. Since they cannot reproduce between themselves and pass the inheritable genes down, these genes would not be passed to the next generation. But homosexuality does not seem to decrease over time, but if anything, is increasing.

So there must be some other cause of homosexuality other than purely genetic.

I'm not ruling out that there can be some genetic factor, but it cannot be the sole reason.

Recent research indicates that women with male, homosexual siblings are more fertile. Interesting.

But this whole question is easy to answer. Is being hetero a choice? Do you choose to like the opposite sex? Why would it be any different for someone who is gay?

[melodious]

But this whole question is easy to answer. Is being hetero a choice? Do you choose to like the opposite sex? Why would it be any different for someone who is gay?

Good point to make. I would have to agree completely. Silly topic, though. Surely there's something a bit more enlightening to discuss or debate.

[Jester]

Recent research indicates that women with male, homosexual siblings are more fertile. Interesting.

That is interesting. If it is confirmed, it might indicate a dietary factor - who knows?

But this whole question is easy to answer. Is being hetero a choice? Do you choose to like the opposite sex? Why would it be any different for someone who is gay?

I hear this argument a great deal, but I have some issues with it. 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. The obvious question, of course, is 'why would they want to'. For my part, I have no interest in changing my sexuality, and don't personally begrudge homosexuals who are likewise disinterested in making such a change.

[Jester]

Duplicate Post. Please ignore (or delete if you're an admin).

[Vanguard]

I am in general agreement with micatala's points.

Here's my thoughts on homosexuality being caused purely genetically. If it is an inheritable trait, then I would expect homosexuality to decrease over time. If homosexuals only partner with the same sex, they could not reproduce between themselves. Since they cannot reproduce between themselves and pass the inheritable genes down, these genes would not be passed to the next generation. But homosexuality does not seem to decrease over time, but if anything, is increasing.

So there must be some other cause of homosexuality other than purely genetic.

I'm not ruling out that there can be some genetic factor, but it cannot be the sole reason.

Recent research indicates that women with male, homosexual siblings are more fertile. Interesting.

But this whole question is easy to answer. Is being hetero a choice? Do you choose to like the opposite sex? Why would it be any different for someone who is gay?

You've not simplified the question at all but rather brought up another example of where we do not have a defintative answer genetically. Much like there is not a clear genetic marker for homosexuality there is no clear marker for heterosexuality, no? IMO, the social milieu in which a child is raised plays a terribly important role in determining the sexual orientation of the child. What might be contributive factors within this milieu?

[Goat]

You've not simplified the question at all but rather brought up another example of where we do not have a defintative answer genetically. Much like there is not a clear genetic marker for homosexuality there is no clear marker for heterosexuality, no? IMO, the social milieu in which a child is raised plays a terribly important role in determining the sexual orientation of the child. What might be contributive factors within this milieu?

I woudl say that the social environment matters greatly on if a child will accept their orientation, but if what you are saying is true, there would not be the heavy guilt and high suicide among gay teens that there is in areas that there is strict disapproval of it.

[Furrowed Brow]

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.

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.

[byofrcs]

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. 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.

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.