Does Anyone Believe Sexual Preference is 100% Genetic?

[sqweels]

@NojNoj

I’m interested in how science gets twisted for political purposes and seeking more input on that issue. I don’t think I’ve said anything that could remotely be interpreted as not believing gays are entitled to full civil rights and full respect, so that’s not part of this at all. (And I’m not a Christian, so don’t really care what the bible has to say. Even if I did, since we don’t stone adulterers or smash the heads of our enemy’s children anymore, not sure why people care what bible has to say about gays.)

And the twisting of science seems so prevalent, I’m surprised others can’t see it. Look at what happened 7 or 8 years ago with Dean Hamer. If this was then, the same posters would be saying “Renowned scientist Dean Hamer of the prestigious National Institutes of Health has said he’s 99.5% sure it’s genetic. Case closed.”

Fair enough then. I can respect your viewpoint and agree that you’re going after fair game.

There is indeed some degree of twisting of science by the Left but my feeling is that the Right makes much too much of such instances in order to portray science as a giant conspiracy so they can dismiss any findings they find inconvenient.

It just seems that there are legions of conservatives who style themselves as experts on the causes of homosexuality despite having little to do with actual gay people, so points to you if you’re not one of them.

My position on the actual issue is that most likely for the vast majority of gays, their sexual orientation is innate and immutable. But given the number of people to work with, there are going to be some exceptions, some experimentation, and of course shades of bisexuality that bring a lot of complications to the issue that need to be put into their proper perspective.

[Shagnasty]

@greenslime1951

So don’t throw rocks at me, but I think that if we become homosexual, we are just indulging that 20% of our sexual psyche that is attracted to the same sex, and if the experiences gained thereby are correlated with positive emotions, then we will seek them out more and more. In other words, I reject the “genetics” theory, because it is my impression that most human sexual behavior is learned.

Maybe for you and others but I truly believe I have never had that 20% that you are referring to and I am not homophobic in any way. I have heard that argument before and the existence of bisexuals shows there is some type of continuum for some people but it certainly doesn’t apply to everyone.

It is another matter of perspective that you can’t even hope to truly understand yourself like being colorblind or left-handed if it doesn’t apply to you. I can barely imagine why women are attracted to men except as a matter of necessity let alone why I might be. I also had sex fantasies and crushes on beautiful women before I could barely walk and I certainly didn’t even understand body parts then. There was never any conscious choice involved.

[panache45]

@TonySinclair

I know it’s genetic in my case. I very clearly remember watching an episode of Red Skelton in 1962. I was 8 years old, and knew absolutely nothing about sex (I was ten before I found out what “fuck” meant). But Jayne Mansfield was the guest star, and she sang a song while wearing a very tight dress, and I got a feeling in my nether regions that I had never experienced before.

I had a similar same-sex reaction when I was 5.

Doesn’t prove a damn thing, genetically or otherwise.

[bldysabba]

@tomndebb

The answer was actually provided on the first page, so you should not have to read very much.

However, to recap:
First, we do not yet know how sexual orientation develops. Recognizing that orientation is not a choice only gets us so far, but does not solve the puzzle.

Among several different possible explanations:
genetics;
placental hormones;
other pre-natal nutrients;
environmental triggers that could be either physical or psychological;
some really messy combination of some or all of the above.

The whole point of the original opposition to the OP was that there are very few people who actually hold that it is purely genetics. Genetics may be involved, but it also might be a matter of the physical conditions in which a fetus develops that are not directly tied to the DNA of the fetus. A lot happens between insemination and birth and a lot more happens following birth. At this point we have a number of tantalizing clues in the way that certain known phenomena correlate with later sexual orientation, but correlation is not causation and we have not yet discovered the actual chain of events, (or reactions of chemicals), that lead to specific outcomes.

I did sorta get that from what I read, I just figured for some reason that more was known. But thank you for the summary!

[Polerius]

Like the ‘blacks are good at running’ threads, this sort of discussion is also fruitless.

The main question, if we ignore the pedants nitpicking on whether to use the term ‘genetic’, ‘biological’, ‘congenital’, etc, is whether there is any choice in the matter, that is, whether sexual orientation is immutable.

As one of the articles linked above says:

“If gay people in this country had more confidence that their individual freedom was going to be respected, then the temperature would lower a bit on the immutability question because the idea of it being a choice wouldn’t seem to stack the deck against their rights,” Pizer said.

Basically, in a totally free society, it shouldn’t matter if sexual orientation is a choice or not. But in today’s US, with the religious right having the influence it has, at least in parts of the country, it’s politically rational for gays to stick to the “it’s not a choice” line and sideline anyone who claims that it was a choice for them.

It’s politically expedient. The Right does this too. Maybe lots of conservatives agree about the existence of man-made global warming, but it’s politically expedient for them to claim it has not yet been proven, because they want to make a lot of money drilling for oil.

[cosmosdan]

@greenslime1951

My personal feeling is that most of us start out, say, 80% heterosexual and 20% homosexual, and our eventual choices are then encoded by nurture, society, and environment.

For instance, consider how big boobs were viewed so favorably in the 1940s-mid 1960s (we even elected one! rim shot). The switch to viewing slimness as the ultimate in “sexy” happened pretty fast, as it had switched to boobiness equally quickly after the flapper era (maybe because being buxom equated to being fed and healthy, something important during the Great Depression?). Anyway, it seems to me that what is sexually attractive is largely encoded by society rather than imprinted by genetics: look at those African tribes where impaling both cheeks with a sharpened gazelle bone, or wearing a dead snake in your belly button, is the ultimate in “sexy.”

Insofar as what we call sexual “orientation,” I think there’s no real difference between finding the same sex sexy and finding, say, redheads sexy. It’s what we learn, from both society and experience. The default setting is to prefer to fuck people of the opposite sex and certain bodily characteristics (like a large hips-to-waist ratio in women), but that’s just the initial setting, and can be monkeyed with to a huge extent.

So don’t throw rocks at me, but I think that if we become homosexual, we are just indulging that 20% of our sexual psyche that is attracted to the same sex, and if the experiences gained thereby are correlated with positive emotions, then we will seek them out more and more. In other words, I reject the “genetics” theory, because it is my impression that most human sexual behavior is learned.

No need to throw rocks. You expressed an opinion that it seems like you made up on your own out of thin air. Anyone can randomly speculate.

[cosmosdan]

@tomndebb

I have never said that it cannot be a choice. I have noted that it is not a choice. For the overwhelming majority of humans, that is a true statement. That there may be conflicted persons in the world who actually made a choice in one direction or another does not invalidate the general nature of the observation. Noting that men urinate while standing is a general observation that is not invalidated if you happen to find a few men who prefer to sit or squat. Noting that sexual orientation is not a choice is a general observation that is not invalidated by a handful of people who are conflicted over their orientation. Finding a few people who announce that they have made a choice, (even excluding misleading claims such as the silliness over Ms. Nixon), does not change the reality for the other 6.999+ billion people on Earth.

From my own experiences in meeting different people and reading individual accounts , I can easily believe that for some people choice has a lot to do with it, even if it’s an unconscious and emotional one. I’ve met people who were IMHO, so wounded and rejected by the opposite gender that they turned to where they found the acceptance love, sex, and support, they craved. in having discussions with a woman who had been married to a male, and then had relationships with women her conclusion was “Decide what kind of sex you prefer because the relationships are pretty similar” It would be pure folly to hold those examples up as proof of anything. Human’s and human sexuality are not easily categorized.

Is there a sliding scale of human sexuality where one end is 100% heterosexual and the other end 100% homosexual, with all humans being scattered somewhere between the two extremes?

In the end, it doesn’t really matter how much of it might possibly be choice and how much is innate. The social growth we’re trying to move toward is to dispel the hateful religious myths and social indoctrination, that paints homosexuals as sick and perverted deviants who are some sort of threat to society.

[Evil_Captor]

Well, the idea that gayness is a choice is still getting political airplay. Witness the Save California effort to fight a bill forbidding the use of “gay therapy” to change sexual orientation from straight to gay. The Save California people claim that the bill would force children who were merely confused about their gender into “homosexual bondage,” i.e., forcing them to believe they are gay even though they are not, because such children are not “born that way”:

Linkety-link.

The discussion on the topic here has been civil and rational. But I don’t think that’s how it’s gonna work in the political arena.