I’m in a debate with someone about the time a father spends with his son, and how it affects the odds of the son ending up gay. The claim is that if a father works too much (e.g. 55+ hrs per week), he can’t spend enough time with his son, and this lack of father time increases the odds of the son ending up gay. I’d like to refute that by debunking the source arguments, but unfortunately the source is “I read it somewhere …”, which is kind of hard to refute!
According to a “60 Minutes” segment from a couple of weeks ago, the strongest influence on homosexuality seems to be the number of older brothers a right-handed man has
Sorry forgot to add that they say they don’t think it’s necessarily older brother influence, but that because a mother has has several boys already, the younger boys are exposed to more androgen in the womb. And they state that homosexual men do have more androgen in their bodies.
There was the idea that the more older brothers you had, the greater your chances of being gay. More lately, the idea that the sluttier your sisters are, the greater the odds you’re gay. It’s the “I really, really, REALLY like guys” gene.
The “maternal influence/paternal neglect” argument is just lame and has been
discounted long ago. Anyone who presents this as a legitimate theory isn’t worth your
time.
Wait until I tell my sister her eventual fate! (Her two older brothers are gay, although I don’t think that the younger will EVER come out of the closet.)
The nature vs. nurture debate again? It seems like the OP assumes nature isn’t even involved – that the chances of becoming gay and the degree to which one does depends primarily on one’s environment, which I think is a steaming load. While the origins of homosexuality are far from being settled, there’s been strong evidence that genetics play a big part. The most significant debate right now is whether genetics alone are responsible or whether it is a combination of genetics, the chemical balance inside the womb, and possibly other contributing factors. None of these arguments leave much room for a “nurture” argument to be presented. Not that I’m an expert but I tend to agree: I don’t think nurture has anything to do with it, so any statistics that suggest the existence or degree of one’s “gayness” is proportional to the amount of time they spend with dear ol’ dad and/or the number of male siblings in the family are simply a reflection of the old “three types of lies” addage.
Furthermore, the whole “nurture” concept would mean that it is behavioral and thus can be “cured.” I think we’ve had ample evidence that this is completely bogus.
I have three sons, all solidly in the “hetero” column. I was in the military when they were growing up, and spent months at a time overseas. I know this is just a personal experience and not scientific, but there are many thousands of fathers who spend as much or more time away from their sons without having them all don Easter bonnets.
One would think that if this theory were true, much of the Western world would have been overrun by Judy Garland fans in the 50s, given that so many sons coming of age in that period had fathers who were away to fight the war - except in Ireland, Sweden and Spain, and other countries who sat it out.
Ok, let’s not panic: nobody tell the sister in law, ok? Thanks.
Pst, RickJay, in the case of Spain lots of fathers had been in the war '36-'40 and lots of them were in exile or in hiding. But I really don’t think my dad and his elder brothers (eldest born in '32, 2nd in '34, Dad in '38) were gay. If Dad was gay he never figured it out
Going back a half-century or so, the general belief was that homosexuality was due to a lack of a strong father figure while the boy was growing up. That’s probably where you friend is coming from.
The belief has been discredited for years – it does look like homosexuality is at least partially genetic – but some people probably were taught it as the cause and still believe it.
