Totally 100% the correct answer to this question. You’ve set up a false dichotomy here.
There’s a lot of theories as to what the biological mechanism behind sexual orientation is; as already mentioned, the birth order effect suggests there’s a hormonal one (some interpret the birth order effect as some kind of autoimmune mechanism). Linkage analyses have found a couple of chromosomal regions, but there’s nothing conclusive.
In flies, the sexual determination pathway has been worked out to pretty fine detail. While people aren’t flies, it’s pretty clear that sexual orientation is determined in Drosophila. I think it’s equally determined in humans, just that the machinery is so complex and may involve multiple “causes” or mechanisms such that it’s much more difficult to nail down.
Which doesn’t make you a mutant (any more than the rest of us are mutants). Or curable (since homosexuality isn’t a pathology). It just makes it a little more intrinsic than some people would have you believe.
Here is an interesting artilce on the subject. Two great quotes. One on the bio v psy:
One on physiology:
But the studies have yet to be repeated, and there are many caveats. But there is some intrigue there. From the looks of it, They’ve “made” gay rats surgically. But that is a far cry from proving it possible in the more complex human physiology.
False dichotomy. A psychological characteristic determined by heredity is still a psychological, as well as a biological, characteristic. And why should the question of whether a same-sex orientation is a hereditary characteristic or not present a “moral” dilemma?
As with just about every other human behavior, I’d say that homosexuality is a combination of environmental influence and biology. There isn’t any human behavior that’s immune to environmental influence, and sexuality is no exception.
In short, I vote for psychological, but I don’t like using that precise word because “psychological” implies that there’s something wrong. There’s nothing wrong with homosexuality, just like there’s nothing wrong with people who prefer a certain style of cooking (even though that’s certainly psychological as well).
All environmental experience is input into a biological system. Furthermore, the environment is merely an output of other biological actors. Therefore, environmental experience is biology.
Works for me! Honestly I don’t understand why there’s such a fuss about this at all. Even if we can prove that homosexuality is or isn’t dependant on biology, who cares?
I think the debate over whether homosexuality is voluntary is a red herring. To give a misleading example (misleading because it sounds homophobic, but I’m just trying to prove a point), if we were tomorrow to pinpoint the exact genetic and prenatal causes that lead to a person being a psychopath, we wouldn’t suddenly say, “Oh, in that case, I guess it is okay for you to go on being a psychopath. Here, let me get the cell door for you.” It would still be antisocial behavior and in need of suppression or treatment. Voluntary/involuntary/biological/psychological/acquired/innate is totally irrelevant to the question of whether it ought to be tolerated.
I support gay rights not because homosexuality is involuntary, but because it is nobody’s goddamn business what consenting adults do with their genitalia.
We can give you scientific information on the genetic theory of same-sex orientation vs. more traditional Freudian theories (such as “matriarchal upbringing”), but just having that information is not going to help you solve any of the problems you describe. Neither is going to a gay bar and getting laid going to help – well, maybe some, but not very much. Going to your minister, priest or pastor for a talk – is probably worse than useless unless you’re a Unitarian (or just maybe Episcopalian). To deal with “disconnection from life” and “feeling dumbed down with a passive response to life,” you need some kind of professional counseling or psychotherapy.
Biological. The formation of primary and secondary sexual characteristics of the fetus is an extremely complex process, with many stages where random variation can be introduced.
Hey, it says there that gay men have bigger dicks than straight guys. Bigger dicks, and all their potential sex partners are men (who we all know are sluts). Maybe I’m playing for the wrong team.
Well, let’s put it this way. Take a pair of identical twins. If one twin is gay the other is much more likely to be gay than a random sample of the population would be.
But there are lots of cases where one identical twin is gay and the other isn’t. Since identical twins share identical genomes, that proves that there can’t be a “gay gene”, where if you have the gene you’re gay and if you don’t have the gene you’re straight.
That still leaves quite a lot of open questions about the causes of heterosexuality, and homosexuality as well. Forget about what causes homosexuality, what causes heterosexuality? What specific brain and body functions causes a typical man to become sexuality aroused by women and a typical woman to become sexually aroused by men? Explain that first and then maybe we’ll have a shot at explaining homosexuality.
In a way I agree. Personally, I like to think about biological underpinnings of behavior so it’s fun to study and argue about it. From a policy standpoint, you’re right, it shouldn’t make a damn bit of difference. However, I’ve known people to argue until they’re screaming that either (1) they’ve been gay as long as they remember and view sexuality as largely innate (2) they chose to engage in sexual behavior with the same sex and view sexuality as largely socially constructed. Honestly, I think it’s more a doctrinal debate than anything, although there are some disturbing implications of both models.
If biological, sexuality can theoretically be modified in utero or selected for/against. My response: I find it unlikely technology will achieve this level of sophistication before society liberalizes to the extent that same sex behavior is accepted.
If socially constructed, sexuality can perhaps be chosen or changed via behavioral modification. Perhaps if it is socially constructed, sexual orientation will be seen as less real somehow. My response: there seems to be pretty good evidence that while orientation is fluid, it’s not something that can be changed at will. Sexual reorientation therapy (or whatever) doesn’t seem to work for most people.
My view (despite the smiley) is essentially what I said to Mosier.
