I looked around a bit and found this interview with a “social-science researcher” who makes the same points as I did above (& some others). The interview is from the National Review, so I would not take it as authoritative. Still, without seeing the studies I don’t think you can draw any conclusions at all.
Mine is just a guess based on my own experience as a gay man and that of friends I have talked to. I find it very hard to explain this in a few sentences so I don’t know that I’ll be able to convey what I am attempting to describe. But I’ll give it a go…
When I was a child, my father was not a strong presence in my life. When he was around, he was often nervous and prone to loud outbursts of anger (though he was never once physically violent), often chastising me for trivial matters when he was stressed due to work.
My mother was the dominant figure in my childhood. She was the one who actually punished me for any mischief I got into, but she was always reasonable, and on the whole, a very “positive” (as in optimistic and outgoing) person.
On top of that, in my first few years, my mother’s parents lived with us, and severe friction developed between my father on the one hand, and my mother and her parents on the other, over my upbringing. In brief, it was 3 against one, which was far from fair.
In other words, as a child, I was much closer to my mother than to my father - and I was unable to communicate at all with my father (something which is still a problem for us today).
Many of my gay friends report analogous situations - I would say the majority of those with whom I have discussed our childhoods. Might this be somehow connected with our being gay? I don’t know. I don’t think it is the only cause, but it might be *part[i/] of the cause.
A gay gene? Maybe. However, if nothing else, the genetic studies show, I think, that environmental factors do play a role, or a much larger percentage of identical twins would both be gay.
I’d say it seems obvious to you because you are wired that way. I’m gay, and to me the other way seems obvious.
Evidence that homosexuality is inborn:
[ul][li]It exists in every culture, regardless of whether it is persecuted, tolerated, accepted, or even encouraged. A complete list would be impossible, but a good place to start would be People with a history, which is a collection of scholarly essays on gays and lesbians around the world and throughout time.[/li][li]Homosexuality is observable in animals – not just bisexuality, but exclusive homosexuality, when opposite sex partners are available. Here’s a great Salon article on the subject[/li][li]The few scientific studies done on the subject have been flawed, but the initial evidence seems to suggest that homosexuality is inborn. See, for example, Simon LeVey’s study of the brain, in which he found the hypothalamus in the brains of gay men resembled that of women.[/ul][/li]
Evidence that homosexuality is not inborn does not exist. Random speculation by religious leaders and psychologists does not constitute evidence, nor does the persistent and baseless myth that homosexuality is “spread” by sexual abuse.
The simplistic argument that homosexuality could not be inborn because – from a Darwinian perspective – homosexuals would be less likely to reproduce ignore certain details:
[ul][li]one study suggested that male homosexuality is passed down the female line – a female carrier of the “gay gene” would sill be heterosexual.[/li]Not all animals reproduce when given the chance. Some animals give up this right in favour of the long term survival of the group – the pack, the herd, etc. Among wolves, for example, only the alpha pair mates. It’s been suggested that gay uncles could help raise and protect their sister’s offspring, increasing the chance of a child’s survival.[/ul]
reminds self to check coding before posting … 
Virgowitch, that’s the second time today I’ve seen you post something that indicates that you believe homosexuality is a choice that people make, as if it were akin to choosing a Chevy over a Ford. This is also the second time that you’ve failed to back up your claim with any evidence or even explain yourself.
Did you know that the burden of proof lies with the one making a claim?
Let me introduce you to something you may hear a lot in your time at this message board.
Cite?
It is common these days for evolutionary biologists to shun the whole nature/nurture debate. The more we learn about genes and behavior, there seems to be a genetic basis for almost all type of behavior, but very little behavior is SOLELY determined by our genes. Different propensities manifest themselves to a greater or lesser degree depending on our envioronment. For instance, there seems to be a gene for “excitement seeking” that may in some cases lead a person to a career in law enforcement, but another person may end up a criminal. All due to a very similar genetic predisposition which manefests iteslf differently over the lives of different individuals. But it’s important to keep in mind that we’re not talking about physics here, but biology. We’re very much at the beginning of our understanding about the whole genetic basis of behavior.
I can’t speak for everyone, of course . . . but I’m gay, and came that way, fresh from the factory. No “choice” about it.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Hamish *
Evidence that homosexuality is inborn:
[ul][li]It exists in every culture, regardless of whether it is persecuted, tolerated, accepted, or even encouraged. A complete list would be impossible, but a good place to start would be People with a history, which is a collection of scholarly essays on gays and lesbians around the world and throughout time.[/li][li]Homosexuality is observable in animals – not just bisexuality, but exclusive homosexuality, when opposite sex partners are available. Here’s a great Salon article on the subject[/li][li]The few scientific studies done on the subject have been flawed, but the initial evidence seems to suggest that homosexuality is inborn. See, for example, Simon LeVey’s study of the brain, in which he found the hypothalamus in the brains of gay men resembled that of women.[/ul][/li][/quote]
This evidence is meaningful when directed at the argument that all homosexuality is completely the result of environment. But when considering the possiblity that both genetics (and/or fetal hormone exposure) and environmental conditions play a factor, they do not show anything.
Also, I am skeptical of your first claim - and I can’t imagine how you might prove such a sweeping claim.
As noted above, common sense would seem to suggest that there are environmental factors as well. Also as noted, there would seem to be differences in the prevalence in different cultures and eras. Also, someone claimed that there have been identical twin studies - are you denying that there have been such studies?
As for your the sex abuse issue, I certainly don’t know of any evidence for the claim. Nonetheless it is not rediculous to speculate that sexual abuse might affect the sexuality of the victim. So I certainly would NOT make such a claim myself, but I don’t think you could call it a baseless myth unless you have evidence in the opposite direction.
In general, it is important to distinguish in such debates between environment/conditioning and choice. I think the former have a significant role, but the latter would be extremely rare. In any event, they are not nearly the same thing.
This synopsis of twins and homosexuality studies suggests to me that there is clearly a biological component to homosexuality. While the difference in the percentage of homosexual siblings between twins and non-twins might have been explained by purely environmental factors (the No two children are born into the same family concept), the significantly higher percentage of identical twins than fraternal twins who are both homosexual would seem very suggestive of a genetic link.
This, of course, does not preclude environmental triggers (and the fact that roughly half of even identical twin pairs are not both homosexual would argue against a purely determinant gene).
(I’m not sure why the there is not a figure for non-twin, not adopted siblings. My memory from twelve years ago was that there had been a figure for that relationship in the study.)
Well, statistically I have no numerical studies to quote, but I have read extensively on the subject, and there seems to be unanimous agreement among male homosexual persons that it was not something that they chose but something that they discovered about themselves – at a variety of ages ranging from early childhood to middle early adulthood, with an mode (for obvious reasons) in the puberty years. In general, this statement is true for Lesbians, except that there are a minority of Lesbians who state that they chose to be gay – my assumption is that these people are bisexual in orientation and identify as Lesbian, normally after negative heterosexual experiences.
My own hunch – and it is no more than that – is that there is a strong genetic component predisposing to the potential for homosexual orientation, and some triggering mechanism in early childhood (which can, perhaps, be one of a number of possible mechanisms) “activates” the predisposition.
To make our theory inventory complete, we should probably bring into the picture the idea that it is neither genetic or environmental but congenital in origin, with hormonal conditioning during pregnancy leading to the orientation. Somebody who understands this theory better than I, or can google out an intelligent writeup on it, ought to comment further on this.
Fuel, what you advance in the OP is not a theory but a hypothesis. There’s nothing wrong with forming a hypothesis, per se, but the proper scientific method then requires that it be tested against available data, hypotheses which pass such a test then becoming theories. Do you have some details on the “conditioning” that might be used to test your hypothesis? I suspect strongly that if asked in a courteous manner, the gay contingent on this board would be glad to answer such an array of test questions.
Anybody think to ask the experts? (No, not me! 
)
According to The American Psychological Association:
Any other questions? 'Cause I don’t know about you, but I’m going to listen to a body of 35+ years of research over my own speculation, or anyone else’s for that matter.
Esprix
my hypothesis could be summed with three words: Power of Suggestion. suggest something to a kid, and he’ll probably go for it. or suggest the opposite, and depending on the circumstances, the kid might very well make a beeline for the opposite. problem is, you don’t quite know what will have an impact on the kid. some kids will be drawn to homosexuality when exposed to anti-homosexual atmoshpere, some vice-versa. at any rate, it’s all about what the kid experiences that depicts or influences his/her gender preference.
predisposition was the word i was looking for in my OP. there are definately people with a strong predisposition towards same sex (genetics or random curiosities), but i think it’s still a choice. (but you can only make the choice or the dive one time. after that, i am sure, it would be hard to make the switch back. that’s why kids make a choice so early at such a vulnerable time in their life that they don’t know what they really want or need… then it’s too late to turn back or they are happy with where they are and have no reason to turn back)
thanks for the links.
the reason i am bent on conditioning is that i believe it applies so much to any part of a human beings personality… this especially goes for gender preference. thus, my proposition is perfectly logical.
another way to say what i am saying is, there actually is no choice. you have a choice per se, but how much of a choice is it when it’s the logical/easiest direction to go in your family life or social life? i am basically trying to debunk the biological component of the homosexual explanation (the brain link or quote was interesting though). experiences make the person. everybody comes out of the womb on fairly equal terms, unless there is a birth defect or your mom has an irresponsible pregnancy or something unnatural.
yes, the last post before mine hit it on the head. they mentioned genetics as i did, but only as a predisposition variable, not as a deciding factor.
OK, your “hypothesis” has been fairly thoroughly debunked by the evidence presented so far - environment is probably a part of what determines ones’ sexual orientation, but biology is also probably a part.
What part of this aren’t you understanding?
Esprix
“Predisposition variable?” 
Did you read the same post that I wrote? Let me emphasize for emphasis:
Esprix
Memo to self:
I know these threads are almost irresistible. It’s completely natural to want to inform people about misconceptions they may have about you. But if a poster starts a thread with a full-blown, but unresearched and baseless theory, there is absolutely no chance that they will listen to any arguments against it. Their posts will simply consist of restatements of their original hypothesis, and no matter how good the facts, how solid the references, how detailed and authoritative the links in the thread are, the person who started the thread will simply believe what they want to believe.
Memo to Fuel:
Did you even read any of the replies in this thread?
since genetics is thought of as only a part of the puzzle = you do NOT come out of the womb homosexual. thus, according to my OP, = homosexuals are not natural but conditioned to varying degrees, some a lot some didn’t need much conditioning, but there is always the conditioning doing the the most work on the individual.
the way i interpret these replies is that genetics is the predisposition, the spark to start the fire. but the fire can be fanned or put out according to experiences. you are not predetermined to be homosexual according to your physical, biological make-up, i think.
i really just wanted to hear others points of view, so at this point i will probably just let thread be and let you guys/gals reply if you want. i’m sorry for being too incomplete in my hypothesis… i am interested in this subject but obviously not enough to do hours of reading and research.
thanks for your replies!
:rolleyes:
Got it in one, MrV.
Esprix
esprix, what’s that supposed to mean? why don’t you comment on the former part of that reply? i guess we are debating now on how big of the puzzle is genetics? 20%, 50%, 90%??? well, i say it’s on the small side, is that so terrible and illogical?
Bolding mine.
Even if you were correct that homosexuality is never 100% genetically determinant ( and nobody really knows the answer to that - I suspect in some cases it is, in some it isn’t ), that in no way suggests there is anything unnatural about homosexuality.
- Tamerlane