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?

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 30 by OpenYourEyes]

Orcas (like many of the smaller cetaceans) are rather promiscuous sexually, but they are also strongly pair bonded, let us not have human prudery and taxocentrism confuse the issue.

[OpenYourEyes]

[Replying to post 30 by OpenYourEyes]

Orcas (like many of the smaller cetaceans) are rather promiscuous sexually, but they are also strongly pair bonded, let us not have human prudery and taxocentrism confuse the issue.

Pair-bonded can signify frienship, especially when promiscuity is involved since that implies non-exclusivity to any one mate. That does not qualify as a sexual orientation.

As an extreme example, judt because bestiality occurs, and sometimes with the animal performing the act. Does this mean the animal was sexually attracted and had romantic feelings towards the human? Do you think the human finds the animal sexually attractive? This is why i have my reservations about labelling rare same-sex behavior in non-human animals as being anything relating to sexual orientation as opposed to a dysfunction, or other reasons like in post #7 on the first page of this topic.

[Bust Nak]

This is why i have my reservations about labelling rare same-sex behavior in non-human animals as being anything relating to sexual orientation as opposed to a dysfunction, or other reasons like in post #7 on the first page of this topic.

Why does that matter? This topic was to debate how much of a factor biological is in homosexuality, not whether it is dysfunctional or not. Observing this behavior in the wild regardless of dysfunctional or not, points to biology being a large part.

[OpenYourEyes]

There is consensus though.

1. There is consensus that it is not a choice
2. There is consensus that it is biological

What there is not consensus on is the exact biological cause. This is becoming apparent from the complexity of factors involved. It is not a simple switch that one can turn on and off like hair or eye color. There is no consensus as to what causes ALS but it doesn't mean that ALS is a choice.

For your #2, i'd say that there is a consensus that biology is one factor as opposed to saying that biology is the only factor. This is not the case for eye color, biological sex, and skin color as my debate question in post #1 explains.

You also have to factor in that twin studies showing some gene linkage to sexual orientation are done on men, like the one that Haven referenced in post #9. Woman sexuality may turn out to be different on average which leads me into your first point.

For your #1, while there may not be any evidence that sexual orientation is a matter of choice but changes or shifts can occur based on factors beyond the person's control. I'll offer one perspective on this recently published by psychologist Lisa Diamond, in her book Sexual fluidity: Understanding a woman's love and desire. I'll post some key information on 'sexual fluidity' that relates to shifts in sexuality:

Sexual fluidity: Understanding a woman's love and desire... Pg. 11. https://books.google.com/books?id=b7GQv ... &q&f=false

Does fluidity means that sexual orientation is a matter of choice? No. Even when women undergo significant shifts in their pattern of erotic response, they typically report that such changes are unexpected and beyond their control. In some cases they actively resist these changes, to no avail. This finding is consistent with extensive evidence (reviewed in chapter 8) showing that efforts to change sexual orientation through "reparative therapy" simply do not work.

Pg. 3 of the same book...

Sexual fluidity, quite simply, means situation-dependent flexibility in women's sexual responsiveness. This flexibility makes it possible for women to experience desires for either men or women under certain circumstances, regardless of their overall sexual orientation. In other words, though women like men appear to be born with distinct sexual orientations, these orientations do not provide the last word on their sexual attractions and experiences. Instead, women of all orientations may experience variations in their erotic and affectional feelings as they encounter different situations, relationships, and life stages. This is why a woman like Anne Heche can suddenly find herself falling madly in love with Ellen Degeneres after an exclusively heterosexual past, and why a longtime lesbian can experience her very first other-sex attractions in her late forties.

Is sexual fluidity the same as bisexuality?

From psychologist Dr. Dylan Selterman.http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/h ... idity.html

But what exactly is sexual fluidity? It’s a fairly simple concept: people’s sexual responses are not set in stone, and can change over time, often depending on the immediate situation they’re in. For example, if someone identifies as heterosexual but then finds themself in an environment with only people of the same gender, they might feel increased sexual/romantic attraction to those same-gender partners. Like any other social trait, sexual preferences, attitudes, behaviors, and identity can be flexible to some degree.
...
Sexual fluidity is not the same as bisexuality.

Another claim in the Slate piece is what appears to be endorsement of the idea that sexual fluidity is merely just bisexuality. This claim is false. Everyone has a sexual orientation (e.g., straight, gay/lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, and others), but the degree to which a person is sexually fluid is a separate variable that operates alongside sexual orientation. Some people are highly fluid, while others are less fluid.

[KenRU]

[Replying to OpenYourEyes]

If I may, we can both quote biologists who cite one position or the other all day long. We have agreed that there is no consensus amongst biologists and animal behaviorists.

That being said, there is no evidence that animal sexual orientation is not biological - there is only various and different explanations that must be used to explain away the many examples of it in nature. That is critiical to my point - that we only have alternate and varying explanations. Because you assert that we should be carefull not to use examples of animal behavior as an explanation for homosexuality, that then leaves you searching for two different causes - one for an animal explanation and one for humans.

Occham's Razor comes to mind. Perhaps the simplest answer is the correct one?

Since I have no pre-existing opinion on the subject matter, I'm quite reluctant to accept the various explanations (dominance, lack of available mates, sexual gratification, environmental etc) but ignore the one explanation that accounts for all species examples: biology. Are you willing to do the same? I'll go one step further, I'm willing to say its the most likely cause.

I can agree that there is no scientific consensus on the explanation, while at the same time admit (believe) that the evidence strongly suggests that biology is a prime reason. Otherwise, I'm forced to believe 1) that all of the examples in nature (and there are many) each and every one, all have different causes, and 2) that man exhibits the same examples of same sex attraction but his causes are different.

Clearly, as this thread has shown, there are numerous factors involved but none have shown that it is not biological in origin (only alternate possibilities).

FYI: Bruce Bagemihl's work, unless I am mistaken, is from the 90's. Have you checked more current sources lately?

-all the best,

[MasterOfOnesOwnMind]

[Replying to post 1 by OpenYourEyes]

This is pretty easy to sum up, but I don't have the tools to prove it to you.

Assuming you're a guy and straight, you could only find females attractive.

If you were a guy and NOT straight, you could only find males attractive.

It isn't a fashion statement or a rebellious action, it just is what it is.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 36 by MasterOfOnesOwnMind]

No one is 100% heterosexual or homosexual. (See the Kinsey scale). If we're talking about attraction, much of it is culturally defined, and by the use of make up and clothing any person could be tricked into finding someone attractive that he/she would not have found attractive if he/she knew the actual gender of the person before clothing and makeup were applied.

From a purely simplistic and biological standpoint, gay individuals should not exist in that biology seeks to reproduce--something that homosexual relationships cannot do and thereby pass on those genes (like in eye color or hair color). So we are left wondering what other biological mechanisms are in place that somehow pass on homosexual tendency when it is obviously not passed down like most other genetic traits.

[MasterOfOnesOwnMind]

[Replying to post 36 by MasterOfOnesOwnMind]

No one is 100% heterosexual or homosexual. (See the Kinsey scale). If we're talking about attraction, much of it is culturally defined, and by the use of make up and clothing any person could be tricked into finding someone attractive that he/she would not have found attractive if he/she knew the actual gender of the person before clothing and makeup were applied.

From a purely simplistic and biological standpoint, gay individuals should not exist in that biology seeks to reproduce--something that homosexual relationships cannot do and thereby pass on those genes (like in eye color or hair color). So we are left wondering what other biological mechanisms are in place that somehow pass on homosexual tendency when it is obviously not passed down like most other genetic traits.

Well it could be natures way of dealing with overpopulation.

We have to remember also, that nature is not perfect and the biological blueprints don't always turn out as nature may have planned. Regardless, a true gay person is gay because they were born with a "Gay Gene". If someone gets tricked into showing lust towards a cross dresser, that is a mistake in identity and holds no bearing in this topic whatsoever.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 38 by MasterOfOnesOwnMind]

Has science actually concluded that a "gay gene" exists? If so, would it be wiped out if gay people stopped having children and passing it on?

[MasterOfOnesOwnMind]

[Replying to post 38 by MasterOfOnesOwnMind]

Has science actually concluded that a "gay gene" exists? If so, would it be wiped out if gay people stopped having children and passing it on?

First off, yes science has concluded that a gay gene exists.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 75855.html

Secondly, Gay genes don't get "passed on" as you so ignorantly put it. Thats like saying only people with autism can pass on autism, which is completely ridiculous!