Poll: Homosexuals natural or conditioned?

Great Debates
41

I don’t believe it’s a choice. I don’t have scientific evidence to back THAT up, but logically, why would anyone choose to be a minority? More importantly, what difference does it make? Live and let live.

On the program with the link below, I found it intersting that they found most lesbians had physical differences to straight women, not just behavorial differences (prefering sex with females). Apparently lesbians tend to have less than a .7 hip to waist ratio. If physical differences exist to that extent… imagine how different the brain can be wired, or hormones increased/decreased… etc etc. (small minute differences that could explain orientation)
http://exn.ca/sexfiles/Homosexuality/

42

My impression is that Fuel is not trotting out the old “homosexuality is unnatural” canard but using “natural” to mean “not caused or mediated by cultural or social pressures, but a result of physiological causes” by the phrasing of his OP and his repeated dichotomies between “natural” and “conditioned.”

I would like to see some evidence for his “early childhood choice” suggestion before I’d call it anything but an unsupported hypothesis, but I don’t think he’s out to play the “them queers is just not nat’ral” game, merely the victim of the connotations of a less-than-well-considered word choice.

43

thanks polycarp, that is right. i thought that much was obvious, but thanks for pointing that out. i am trying to make my posts as short as possible, so i opted to leave that out.

i know i am going against the flow here. that’s one reason i posted this. adolescents make many many decisions during their short years. some are good decisions, some are bad. some are frivilous, some are uneducated, some are calculated and thought out, but calculated by a young ignorant kid who may or may not be clear headed. social pressures and family life are so instrumental in shaping a kids’ personality and future. a kids’ social, family and educational atmospheres hit him head on at a point at which he can’t deal with them as well as an adult. so a kid inevitably makes many bad, ignorant, uncalculated decisions throughout his growing years. kids end up in gangs, kids drop out of school without telling their parents, kids pop 10 zanny bars at once…

-----(((((with this shaping giant in early in one’s life, is it that hard or illogical to believe it would affect one’s sexual preferences tremendously?)))))-----

(notice all my posts have contained the words FOR THE MOST PART.)

Mith: so most lesbians are overweight with a 20:30 hip:waist ratio? or excuse me, “tend” to be overweight? what does that matter. let’s not play the “ok, let’s put all the homosexuals together and see what they all have in common… and it doesn’t matter what it is, it could be hands (like on that site) or freckles or whatever”. that is not logic. and comparing us to animals is not logic. it contains an assumption that we are similar enough to animals to be compared to them in our love lives.

this was what tomndebb posted a site:

Bailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among brothers
52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, “A genetic study of male sexual orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991.

Bailey and Pillard (1993): occurrence of homosexuality among sisters
48% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual women were likewise homosexual (lesbian)
16% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
6% of adoptive sisters of homosexual women were likewise homosexual

these two studies say that when you grow up with homosexuals raising you or around you (parents or brothers), you are more likely to become homosexual. i agree, i should have used that to prove MY point. that is not a link to genetics but a cause of conditioning.

44

yes. and i interpret this partial role of genetics as a way out. a choice. admitting that the role of our environment can affect the outcome of our lives proves that one is NOT determined to be hmosexual out of the womb. there are many many ways around a genetic predisposition, it’s just that most shameful homosexuals (homosexuals who wish they weren’t) or homosexuals who swear they could never be hetero, didn’t find that way out or didn’t look for the way out.

45

You’re seriously suggesting that sexual orientation is determined in adolescence?

And did you miss the 50% correlation between sets of identical twins?

Furthermore, please explain how I turned out gay but my sisters didn’t, when we were raised by the same parents in the same household. For that matter, please explain why any sibling of a gay person turned out straight, since they were raised by the same parents in the same household.

Jeez Louise, way to twist facts to fit your pet theories!

Esprix

46

Is there something wrong with being homosexual? Indeed, even if it were a choice, would it make a difference? We are (arguably) given the freedom to live our lives as we see fit, as long as it breaks no laws and hurts no other, eh?

“A way out” indeed. Careful, Fuel - your agenda is showing. :rolleyes:

Esprix

47

You are misunderstanding completely, Fuel. The studies Tom~ cites show that there very likely a genetic component.

There is nothing in the site linked to that even mentions the parents’ sexuality nor the acceptance of homosexuality in the family.

48

Those figures say nothing of the sort. If it is simply a matter of “growing up around” homosexuals, then the figures for fraternal twins and adoptive siblings should be nearly the same as those for identical twins. There is no information in that study that indicates “being around” homosexuals has any effect at all. (It does not preclude it, but it certainly does not support it.)

49

So, Fuel, how do you explain all the homosexuals out there who didn’t have gay sex during their adolescence? Or the homosexuals who came to realize their sexuality after being married for years? Or the homosexuals who, after years of being exposed to environments where homosexuality is condemned, and after struggling mightily to try and reverse their sexual orientation, came to realize that it was an integral part of their nature, like it or not?

There’s a big difference between ‘environmental factors can influence homosexuality’ and ‘misguided adolescents are choosing to be gay to spite their parents,’ and your argument makes no distinction between the two. Care to find anything that supports your ‘adolescent choice’ theory?

I’ve never met anyone, anywhere who claims that they chose to be gay during their adolescence, and then can’t go back to being heterosexual. You’d think that’d be a memorable event. Why is the testimony of homosexuals on this matter irrelevant to you?

And then, lastly, and most importantly, what does it matter to you?

50

My assumption would also be that this is the most influential time. Why the shock?

And if it were “simply a matter of” genetics, then the figures for fraternal twins would be the same as non-twin siblings - it is substantially higher.

What these studies seem to show is that there are both components involved. Which - frankly - is exactly what you would expect.

51

People seem to be confusing “conditioned” or environmental factors as “choice” and that is obviously not correct.

The fact that twins have only a 50% gay corelation does not mean that one of the twins decided to become gay. Nor does it necessarily mean that he was taught to be gay either. For all we know it may have been inter-utero conditions which caused the difference in the twins.

Personally I think it’s a little silly to have a debate over something which eventually(probably) will have a factual answer when everyone is just arguing from emotion and ignorance.

52

BTW, Fuel, that hip-to-waist ratio is not necessarily an indication of “overweight.”

53

Absolutely not! Or is that what you are getting at, Fuel? Please share your full agenda & conclusions with us.

[hijack]
by the way, I sent you an email, Esprix.
[/hijack]
MH

54

Because every gay person I’ve ever met can remember same-sex attraction waaaaaaaaaaaaay before adolescence and puberty. I, for one, remember having a crush on a male classmate in the fouth grade, but never being attracted to girls.

Again, from the APA:

“At an early age,” but the studies I’ve seen (and I don’t have a cite handy) indicate “early age” to mean “before the age of 5.”

“Emerges” does not equate to “chosen.” I came to the realization and acceptance that I was gay when I was 18, but I was gay long, long, long before that.

Indeed, and this is what research suggests. Either way, it’s something that happens, is beyond one’s control, and can’t be changed.

Esprix

55

Izzy, agreed that adolescence is the time when one most commonly experiences erotic arousal when contemplating a person found attractive to oneself (although there is quite a bit of evidence showing that it’s “natural” for pre-puberty children to experience arousal), you’re only addressing sexual desire, an important part but still only one part of what constitutes orientation. I recall finding scantily clad girls very intriguing well before I can recall experiencing an orgasm; I can introduce you to an eight-year-old who thinks that (older) “girls are pretty.” And to his six-year-old brother who is unabashedly sensual and has occasional erections when cuddling with adults he loves, of both sexes. Pre-puberty sexuality is not well researched (for what I think are obvious reasons) but is evidently a component of the human psyche.

I’d be interested in seeing if we can isolate an objective meaning for “natural” as used in the normal context (as opposed to Fuel’s) or whether it’s merely a category meaning, in essence, “It’s not something I would ever want to do, so it’s not ‘natural’ for anybody.” News item: I don’t find cunnilingus enjoyable, but based on statistical evidence I find myself in a minority. And I would never class it as “unnatural.”

56

:eek:

[sub](Poly said “cunnilingus!”)

:eek:

{faints dead away}

Esprix

57

(Note also to Polycarp)

I’m not sure how you can identify such an attraction as sexual as opposed to generally “liking to hang around with Joe”. I suspect that many people who have such attractions reinterpret them retroactively based on how they turn out when they grow up.

In general, from what I’ve read of human development, it is common for teenagers entering adolescence to form an “attraction” to an older member of the same gender. This is thought to be a precursor - in most cases - of later attraction to people of opposite gender.

This does not mean that this attraction is a “sexual” one. In my own case, I remember in my early teens absolutely worshipping a certain guy I knew about 8 years older than me. But I would have been horrified and revolted had someone suggested performing any sex acts with the guy. :wink:

Still, adolescence is a time when people are becoming conscious to a greater degree of their sexual identity and new-found feelings. It would not be surprising if people were subject to a significant amount of imprinting at this time.

Of further note: we have been using language of homosexual or heterosexual throughout this debate, which might give a false impression of a black and white, one or the other world. When as we know, sexual orientation is actually a sliding scale. So that the influence of environment or genetics might not always be in turning straight to gay or vice versa but in moving a 3 to a 4 etc.

According to this, it would be possible to study someone at age five and determine that they are (or will turn out to be) gay. I don’t believe it.

58

Perhaps, perhaps not, but I’d appreciate not having my feelings trivialized. I had a crush on him, and there is no doubt in my mind about that. I also never had the same feelings for any girl. I think you’ll find similar statements from many gay men and lesbians. Science cannot quantify feelings.

And it seems obvious to me that it’s the time when you come to realize what you already are - any “imprinting” is long since over.

I’ll agree with that.

I don’t believe that’s what was said. What is theorized (as human sexuality is a slippery eel of a scientific study) is that, again, any environmental factors that go into the development of your sexual orientation take place in infancy and toddlerhood. (NOTE to all those who would take that out of context - we’re not talking child molestation, we’re talking intangible and ineffable quantities that happen to all of us in life.) All the reading I’ve done tends to indicate that “you” (as in your personality and defining characteristics) are pretty much cemented by around age 5. I, personally, agree with that.

Esprix

59

Esprix, you’re forgetting… in the debates that take place on the nature of homosexuality, the testimony of homosexuals is completely ignored. If people were to take our experiences into account, then they wouldn’t be able to spend so many happy hours doing conjectural calisthenics to try and figure out what makes us who we are. And that would just take all the fun out of it, wouldn’t it?

60

It is theoretically possible for all the environmental factors to be in place by age five without anyone being able to figure them out. But then there would be no studies that could verify this. If there are studies which have concluded that sexual orientation is fixed by age five, then presumably by using whatver criteria was used in the study you could actually identify orientation by age five.

I think this is a major overstatement. And I would think that in the case of sexual orientation - considering what you would agree is at least a major development that takes place in adolescence - it would make sense to attribute a larger part to later development.