Poll: Homosexuals natural or conditioned?

Great Debates
181

My previous post was directed to Tamerlane.

Right, the survey said nothing about it - the vast majority of people are not adopted, so its a safe bet that the vast majority of these twins were not adopted either. The entire study was about 55 sets of twins so there were likely no meaningful amount of adoptees - if any.

If you were looking for a subset consisting of identical twin gay adoptees it might be a very small group indeed.

People’s reaction to environment is itself a product of genetics. Absent any environmental impact there’s no reason to assume that two genetically identical people will respond any differently to the same environment. I imagine your identical acquaintances were exposed to differences in environment - as were the identical twins in this study who turned out to differ in sexual orientation. But the point remains that their environment is far more similar than that of two randomly selected individuals.

To the extent that we are saying that even a small change in environment can change sexual orientation (or personality in general) we are attributing more power to environment and less to genetics.

182

Right, that’s what it looks like to me as well. Which of course doesn’t really answer which is more important, environment or genes. Especially as we don’t know what triggers ( if that is indeed what is going on ) are in play. So same old, same old :).

Sorry I’m can’t be more helpful.

  • Tamerlane
183

Hmmm…A dicey comment I think. After all if we accept your proposition we still have a situation where no genetic factor present equals no possibility of developing a particular sexual orientation. That’s quite a bit of power, depending how you look at it.

At any rate, again we don’t know what the supposed environmental triggers are. It might be something that seems small, but is probabilistically low and therefore not so significant, or perhaps it is a sequence of events that have to be followed in a certain order, or maybe it is a variety of different triggers that could be sprung at different times but will only have an impact if triggered at the right moment for any given one of them, all of which is regulated by genotype.

Again, too many variables, not enough info, I think.

  • Tamerlane
184

I read an interesting paper discussing a hypothesis about this subject once. I haven’t heard the hypothesis since, and can’t find a cite, but it is an interesting idea as it provides an alternate explanation for how homosexuality arises in an individual while simultaneously providing the reason why no one has been able to nail down the “gay gene” or a multi gene complex. I am having to recall it from imperfect memory, so take the science with a grain of salt.

The author proposed a link between testosterone levels in the womb and homosexuality. She noted a sharp increase in the incident of homosexuality among the younger male children in a line of male siblings. As it turns out, if a woman bears several male children in a row, the testosterone level inside the womb will increase with each pregnancy - at least until the mother bears a girl and it resets to normal levels. The author hypothesized that homosexuality may be inborn, but NOT have a genetic basis at it arises due to the mother’s hormone levels during neo-natal development. Since a number of factors can cause hormonal changes during pregancy, this may account for the demographic statistics being so damn stubborn in refusing to adhere to any obvious hereditary links.

Anyway, just a thought.

185

A suggestion (presuming it’s acceptable to staff): with the rather large proportionate population of gay men and women on this board, would it be appropriate to do a study of genetic and environmental influences on sexuality, perhaps over in IMHO, to see if we can get beyond the reasoning-from-insufficient-data problem that seems to be afflicting the current discussion? Is this something that gay Dopers would be willing to participate in?

186

Polycarp, I’d be happy to participate. What sort of study were you thinking of? In other words, as far as I know, the only thing many of us could contribute on the genetic side is information on other family members who are known to be gay.

187

Fuel, back on about page 2, I proposed an alternate hypothesis for what you were observing. You haven’t commented on it yet. Do you care to?

Also, with all due respect, the only things we have to form an opinion of you by are what and how you post. If you disdain capital letters, grammar, and punctuation, it comes across as not having any respect or courtesy for your audience, whether you intend it to or not. Why then, should we show you any courtesy or response? Demo, jiyuu de posuto-sureba no hoo ga yokatara, Nihongo de posuto simsyooka? :smiley:

CJ

188

ffabris-You look familar :smiley: :wink:
(sorry for the hijack!)

189

Thanks, beeblebrox – that’s the “congenital, hormonal-flood” theory that I made reference to (but couldn’t remember the details of).

ffabris, I need to give this some thought. Obviously the genetic component could involve family members, with exploration of the possibility of sex-linked genes (e.g., expressed in males but transmitted in the female line, like pattern baldness). We’d have to make a collection of the supposed environmental factors that have been advanced over the years, and have a simple yes/no question structured for each. Let me take a little time to think this through (and suggestions are welcome).

190

Heh … yeah! :slight_smile:

But don’t you try to drag me into yet another “creation vs evolution” board! One os more than my digestion can handle, thank you very much! :smiley:

Polycarp, take all the time you need. :slight_smile: I am looking forward to see what you come up with. And please let me know if I can help in any way.

191

Well certainly genetics has quite a lot of power. It was never my intention to deny that. Still, it suggests quite a lot of power for environment as well.

Beeblebrox, the problem with your theory is that fraternal twin share the same womb, but only 20% or so of the siblings of gay twins were gay. Which does not rule out hormonal influence as a factor, but certainly nothing to make too much about.

The value of scientific studies based on polls in IMHO is zero - or less. Severe selection problems, for one thing, as well as memory and other issues.

192

Well; I’d first like to say that this has been a hell of a read and while it’s certainly been interesting, I feel bad for those that were stirred by the things which have been said. Now for the contradiction, I might be pouring some fuel into the fire. I hope I’m not, I don’t believe I am; curiosity and interest in the subject is marching me along. So; if for some reason the discussion turns south once more after my post, you have my most sincere apologies.

I’d also like to give some anecdotal information about myself, perhaps it’ll shed a bit of light into the argument.

I didn’t choose to be straight. For the heterosexuals out there, Im sure this is a baffling statement; thus, I’ll elaborate. You could describe me millions of ways, depending on your personal thoughts and views but I’ll offer some choice descriptions: Artsy, Intellectual, Girly, Effiminate, Feminime, Queer. In the past I tryed my hardest to possess more than a remote physical attraction to men, thinking that because of my characteristics, only another man would want my company for any long term. Luckily, I’ve found a wonderful woman who appreciates my girlishness; who in fact nurtures who I am and allows me a certain safety in being myself. I’ve never, repeat NEVER been romantically attracted to men. I find nothing desirable emotionally in what one would call masculinity, and my purely sexual desires towards men stops at the point where they begin to look much beyond androgeny. As a young child (if memory serves, we’re talking actual preschool here) I played doctor with members of both sexes. I can’t tell you exactly how I felt about that, who I preferred; I just know the fact of it. This brings me to my actual thoughts (which, I must note based on the rather heated displays previously are ONLY based on my personal experiances and observations.)

Both gender identification and sexuality are largely predetermined (either genitically or chemically, Im not debating that. I’d like to know, but that’ll be off in the future Im sure.), yet slightly influenced by a huge clump of factors which I’ll be forced to call environment. In my case; I wouldn’t have been able to become comfortable with who I am, perhaps I wouldn’t be who I am if I were staunchly thrown into a military family and beaten when I requested to grow out my hair and a better facial moisturizer (not to mention a nice female uniform ;p). Furthermore, I see bisexuality (on a pure physical/sexual front) just being good common sense. There’s nothing wrong with having a sensually good time, in my eyes. Homosexuality? Without even looking at the other species of our planet, I feel as if this is an obvious step on the evolutionary ladder. We’re not trying to outmate all the other mammals anymore, we are in fact the dominant species. That two people who under most circumstances will NOT produce offspring can still live happily and productively makes me worry that much less about a future of overcrowding. A note for all of those who are religious and rely on choice as a method to condemn those who don’t follow your oh so holy law: Do you still believe in the tooth fairy too? I’m sure Jesus was a great guy, but how do you know everything you read is the truth? You can’t even all agree with eachother, let alone explain to anyone else how the vast majority of it makes a shred of sense. If people aren’t hurting eachother and they’re happy, just let them be.

193

Sorry but I haven’t read all the posts… but here goes…

Don’t most biologists now think that its a mixture of nature/nurture? Like intelligence, personality, sporting ability and so on.

194

Um, ravage, you’d be best to read all the posts before just leaping in.

Esprix

195

Several species of animals have been observed and even video taped engaged in homosexual intercourse. This, in my mind, is very strong evidence that homosexuality is a natural, genetic occurrence and not something that is learned or that results from environmental influences.

Homophobia, however, is entirely the result of environmental factors and represents a very obvious choice on the part of the homophobe – the choice to hate those who are different.

196

Or, to be totally fair to the “learned response” side, something that derives from the environmental influences and cultural conditioning of those animals’ social structure, as well as from humans’.

197

IMO: Genetic Factor, Environmental Trigger.

Forgive me if I commit the tremendous faux paux of providing cites rather than bluster:

Beeble: http://www.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/29/gay.fingers/

Izzy: http://salmon.psy.plym.ac.uk/year3/psy364gender-nature-nurture/psy364gender-nature-nurture.htm#testosterone_brain

notably:

So genetic match correlates with gay concordance, but environmental factors such as womb-testosterone levels also positively correlate. I agreed with this para enough to quote it:

198

I dunno - reads as too Freudian for my tastes, but I’ll digest it.

Esprix

199

Its 6:00 in the morning and I’m very tired. I don’t have the time or energy to put together a complete, coherent or convincing outline of my beliefs on why certain people have certain sexual predilections. I will say that I believe that anyone who claims that homosexuality (or most any human characteristic) is the result of a single cause (whether genetic, biological, or experiential) is either narrow-minded or uneducated. We can discuss this belief in future posts if any one wishes, however, right now I have something more important to say.

I’m gay. But unlike many of the other gay men and women in this thread, I don’t really CARE why. Regardless of the reason I am gay, it is a major part of who I am. I don’t feel an overwhelming desire to explain why, just as most heterosexuals don’t give a second thought to the reason they turned out straight. I don’t really care because the cause does not determine whether or not it is right or wrong. If it were to turn out that homosexuality is exclusively a result of genetics, that wouldn’t make me feel any better about being gay. I’m already proud. If it were to turn out that homosexuality is entirely the result of environmental influences, that wouldn’t make me feel any worse, because a many aspects of who I am are a result of environmental influences. For example, I’m likely a liberal (small L) because my parents held liberal beliefs. I’m caring and trusting, because as a child I was surrounded by people who encouraged these qualities. The bottom line is that when science finally does elucidate the root causes of homosexuality, I guarantee you that the results will fail to make me feel any differently about the way I’ve turned out. In the same vain, I’ll admit that it bothers me to see others so fervently defending homosexuality as genetic because it really does seem like they are using this argument to lend legitimacy to something which they should not have to defend.

As a side note, I wish people on this thread would stop using the concepts of “environmental influence” and “choice” interchangeably. The word “choice” implies conscious thought and contemplation. Even if homosexuality is shown to be entirely “conditioned” it would no more be a choice than being a person your friends would describe as funny, or kind, or quiet, or mean, or brooding, or sweet. People don’t sit there and decide “this is who I am going to be.” They simply look in the mirror and there they are. I will concede that a person can chose whether or not to ACT in a way which is consistent with who they are, but behaviour does not change what lies beneath the surface.

I hope SOME of my ramblings have made sense. If you want to further discuss any of my points just let me know.

200

They made sense to me, and I agree with your entire post. In particular, this part:

“it bothers me to see others so fervently defending homosexuality as genetic because it really does seem like they are using this argument to lend legitimacy to something which they should not have to defend.”