According to the APA it is a complex combination of biology and environment, including (but not limited to) biochemistry, physiology, psychology, biology, genetics, and about a thousand other things that make each and every person unique.
So, basically, we’ll never know, nor understand it, and will likely never have control over it.
Does it matter? I have yet to figure out why this is so important to anyone other than those who wish to see homosexuality “eradicated.”
Esprix
Then again, they say this already. Not much you can do about the morons in the peanut gallery. If there are genetic factors, there are genetic factors. Most likely it’s a combination of all sorts of things, making attempts to ‘fix’ it difficult if not impossible. I imagine some bigots will try, but I don’t see anything we can do about that.
I think it’s just curiosity, Esprix. A lot of people around here (and in the world at large, I bet) wonder about the subject. There’s no harm in seeking knowledge.
Yes, I think it does matter a great deal to someone who is struggling with their own sexuality. I think it’s a natural part of the self-identification process.
It also is a defined part of human behavior and therefore interesting to think about if human behavior happens to interest you. I don’t mean to put it into cold, clinical terms because clearly there is a lot of emotion involved but I don’t see why if someone is wondering about something that there has to be a judgement attached to it.
Of course some people will utilize knowledge for evil. Otherwise, James Bond would be out of a job 
Bolding mine.
Maybe I’m blowing math but isn’t that contraindicated by the 3%-10% (depending on whose numbers you believe) figure for the total percentage of population that are gay? That is, wouldn’t I expect that for any gay child with another child of the same age some percentage greater that 1% should also be gay?
And I do find the question worth answering. Not for any strange means of breeding out the gene or whatever but just to have it answered. Because it’s something I don’t know.
I’ll see if I can’t find a cite, but there’s been a spate of recent research suggesting that everything from our propensity for addiction to our weight and eating habits are based in genetics, so why is it such a stretch to believe that our sexual preference is not also genetically determined to a great extent?
From my hetero perspective, my take has always been that sexual orientation–or, if you prefer, where you are on that scroll bar–is more nature than nurture. I really don’t think one can “go gay” or “go straight”. Given the opprobrium that homosexuals still are forced to endure, and that most acutely at the very age of sexual awakening-- I find it hard to believe that one would willingly be homosexual if they weren’t wired that way.
Another reason why I don’t think the nature-nurture debate is politically useful is because it doesn’t work. Plenty of homophobes have acknowledged a genetic basis for sexual orientation – including the Nazis, I’ve heard, though I have no ready cite for that.
I’ve heard some conservative Christians acknowledge LaVey’s research by saying, essentially, “So what? There’s also a genetic basis for alcoholism.”
Well, the statistics are very muddy. I have seen surveys done well-respected polling groups that put the figures at anywhere from 1% to 25% of the population. This is one of the reasons I don’t trust surveys.
When you factor in that only a minute percentage of a country’s population – usually far less than 1% – is polled, and the pollster expects those numbers to representative, you have to wonder about the reliability of any survey. Other factors include that this is a delicate subject (a lot of people won’t “come out” to a pollster), that some people get their jollies lying to pollsters (my sister is one of those people), and that there are some very clueless individuals out there (funniest poll I ever saw said that 1% of self-identified “heterosexual men” had sex exclusively with other men).
That being said, you can resolve those numbers mathematically – after all, if the chances of any randomly-selected member of the population being homosexual is one-in-ten, then the chances of two randomly-selected members both being homosexual is one-in-ten of one-in-ten, or one-in-one-hundred – 1%.
Just wanted to address a few of the posts…
My argument is that sexuality is self-determinded by the phenomenon that is the creation of life. I believe that sexuality is already defined at the point of birth, and that no amount of environmental conditioning or “bad parenting” can change it. It just seems like common sense to me that sexuality is defined in this way. After all, it is such a fundamental aspect of the way we live our lives. I can see how there could be confusion over what I meant by “decided at birth”, so I just wanted to clarify that point.
Homosexuality would run counter to gene perpetuation if there were so many homosexual people (men and women) that human reproduction was affected. How can the human race regulate the ratio of hetro to homosexual people? It appears to be random, doesn’t it? In order for non-breeding adults to help raise others children there must be enough hetrosexual adults having babies in the first place.
I would agree with you about there being some experiences in life that will affect your sexuality. However, I don’t believe that your fundamental sexual persuasion can be affected. Sure, a woman may stop having sex with men if she were sexually abused (for example), but I don’t think her underlying sexuality is altered.
I wasn’t aware of this, seems like strong evidence for the nature case. Which other species have homosexuality?
I can not find a cite, but when I lived in Germany in the early 80’s there was a study that showed a higher percentage of deaf men were Gay as compared to non-deaf men.
One theory was that by not hearing homophobic comments their entire lives, the deaf men were more willing and able to accept their sexual orientation.
This could imply that there is a larger percentage of Gay men than previously thought, but that cultural factors are repressing them.
I personally don’t think it matters if it is genetic or a result of early physical and developmental growth and learning.
The fact of the matter is that despite a history of persecution and torment, every attempt to eradicate Gays from the earth has failed. We just keep popping up everywhere. Born by rabid Bible-thumpers as well as from liberal couples; to poor families in Africa and royal families in Europe. There is no common denominator to date.
And if they ever find a “Gay gene”, my question will be, where is the “Straight gene”…genetic engineering can always go in both directions. In case anyone has forgotten, it is not necessary to be heterosexual to father/give birth to a child.
Well, I think you’re working with a fallacy there. Our two people aren’t both randomly selected, only the second one is.
If we look to obtain a working group of siblings in which one of them is gay then determine the orientation of the second, non-related sibling that number should represent (barring small sample errors) the percentage of gay orientation in the population at large.
Hey, I’ve got no ax to grind here (and a straight man dances on eggshells in these discussions)…I’m just in it for the math.
I think it’s been observed in a number of different apes, and dolphins, among others. I’ve seen this cited in other places around this Forum, perhaps someone can help me out?
With all of the discrimination that gays face and all of the pain with what transexuals face getting surgically changed, I dont believe anyone makes a voluntary “choice” to do those things. They have to be born that way.
Anyways, how can you change what you “like”? It is like saying that tomorrow, you will like strawberry ice cream instead of chocolate, and I dont see how sexuality can be an “acquired” taste.
You’re anthropomorphizing. Genes are not sentient. Genes do not have goals or desires. Genes do not care whether or not they are passed on to the next generation.
You may, perhaps, have heard of genes that cause diseases and disorders. Some of them are fatal. Some of them kill people long before they reach reproductive age. Some of them merely render people sterile. But there are plenty of known genes out there in the human population that do a lot more to hurt an individual’s quality of life and reproductive chances than homosexuality does. If a genetic disposition towards homosexuality makes no sense to you then a genetic disposition towards death before reaching puberty must make even less sense to you, and yet in the latter case such genes have been proven conclusively to exist. Amazingly, the world operates without regard for your ability to understand it.
Susann, I don’t think anyone is arguing about conscious choice. That’s not the same as saying the environment has some influence.
Hormone link to lesbianism
BBC News | 30 June 2003 | Mark Hutchinson
Lesbians are more than twice as likely to suffer from a hormone-related condition, fuelling theories that hormones play a role in developing their sexuality. The latest research, presented at the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology conference in Madrid on Monday, came from a clinic which is one of only two in the UK to offer fertility treatment to lesbian women.
Doctors there noticed a “staggering” number of lesbian women, who, on investigation, were found to be suffering either from polycystic ovary syndrome, or a less serious but related condition in which their ovaries showed many of the same features, but without the external symptoms.
The researchers found that prevalence of this symptomless condition was 80% in the lesbian women they saw, compared with just 32% of their heterosexual patients.
Full-blown polycystic ovarian syndrome was present in 38% of lesbians, and 14% of the heterosexual women.
Male to female transexuals also have a part of the brain which is the same as that part of a female brain.
I never heard any biological reason for female to male transexuals, nor male homosexuals though.
There are, at the present, far fewer female-to-male transexuals. Though I’ve heard that is changing somewhat.
My link to Time magazine now leads to “premium content” which is jargon for “cough up $2.50, bub.”
But the article mentions one possible indicator for gay men, at least, and a supposition explaining it. Gay men are much more likely than average to have at least one older brother. This leads to the supposition that the mother creates antibodies against the male hormones, repressing so-called “masculine” development in the fetus.
If this is truly a factor in the development of male homosexual (one of several, no doubt), there may even be a biological imperative for it, though what it might be escapes me. A throttle on population growth, perhaps? or something to prevent bloody competition between male siblings?
In other words, it may not be entirely genetic, but it may be developmental.
FISH
I am not sure I understand your statement.
Are you also saying that a mother that has a second daughter is more prone to have a lesbian?
However, all of the gay men I have ever known were very “masculine”, even macho(Rock Hudson types, military, sports, athletic, hairy, muscular, etc), and had no feminine characteristics nor any attaraction to the feminine.
Since the gay men I knew were very “masculine” I dont see how your theory “fits”, or makes any sense.
Your statement would make some sense if you said repressing masculine development leads to transgender male to female, and having an older female sister would then lead to a transgender female to male.
I can only say what the article claimed, and that was the going theory that the mother’s body began to create antibodies against … (I don’t know, testosterone? Hormones?) that could interfere with the full development of any second-born male baby.
As I said, the article is no longer available online, but it was just in Time: “What Makes You You?” with a baby’s face superimposed on some building blocks. It came out at the end of June: the June 30th issue, perhaps.
You observe, and I agree, that this theory doesn’t adequately explain lesbianism, nor does it explain every case of homosexual men. (Not every gay man as an older brother, of course.) I tried to qualify my contribution by saying it was a theory that was only one of many possibilities currently being examined. I’m not entirely convinced of it myself. However, it is a theory based on neither genetics nor child-rearing, so I thought it would be of interest. I wish I could actually access the article, or find a copy of the magazine, but it is a for-fee site.
FISH