Apologies if that takes us a little into GD. I’m trying to make the point that this isn’t a question that occurs in a vacuum-and that it makes little sense to ask if same-sex attraction (or lifestyle) is innate or a choice without asking if the same arguments apply equally to opposite-sex attraction (or lifestyles, or whatever)
You may note that I’m not favoring zoophillia–**I’m trying to tease out how those that are arguing that same-sex whatever is a choice distinguish the argument that opposite-sex whatever is also a choice. ** The OP has been answered both empirically and anecdotally-I’m trying to do so through induction (To put it as a series of logical propositions: Opposite-sex attraction isn’t a choice. Same sex attraction, like opposite sex attraction, involves an individual of one gender being attracted to a certain gender. Occam would suggest that we shouldn’t use one reason (innate) to explain opposite-sex attraction, and a completely different explanation for same-sex attraction, which only differs in the gender the individual prefers)
To respond to your “proof” may take us a little GD-and if so, I apologize. But if all we care about is children, then we shouldn’t favor my grandparents’ relationship. They can’t have kids. All their kids are grown and independent.
All of which proves nothing whatsoever. Are you saying you had no opposite-sex fantasies or feelings? Are you sure you would remember your early opposite-sex fantasies now that you self-identify as gay? Is it relevant that you were 5 when you had the fantasy? (Maybe that is too old/too young to “count” here.) Are there any other preferences that you remember thinking about when you were young or is sexual preference the only one? If sexual preference is the only one, how do you explain that?
Sorry, I should’ve put the [/satire] tag to make it clear…
Baaaaaah. I should have figured it out.
To clarify my previous clarification…
I’m not gay. It was just playing devil’s advocate by writing some bad comedy.
[Moderating]
Let’s try to keep this in GQ as much as possible. I would appreciate it if people focus on the scientific aspects of the question, as indicated in the OP, rather than the moral, political, or social aspects. Of course, if you wish to expand the discussion, you are welcome to start a thread in GD.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
I don’t believe that we understand enough about human sexuality to make that statement. It certainly is a reasonable hypothesis, but not a statement of fact.
I had no opposite-sex fantasies whatsoever. Oh sure, I periodically had a “crush” on a girl, but those feelings seem both qualitatively and quantitatively different; there was nothing whatsoever sexual about them. This seemed more to do with things learned from our culture; activities that most kids act out (playing house, mock-weddings, giving flowers or valentines). Even through adolescence, I often had a non-sexual “girl friend,” yet all my sexual fantasies were about males.
I remember a great deal from my childhood . . . back to when I was a baby. Not merely things I witnessed, but internal thoughts and feelings as well . . . including many “preferences” of a non-sexual nature. But I don’t recall even one instance of a sexual feeling toward a girl, at any age.
Of course it’s a continuum, and I suspect it’s a fairly symmetrical bell curve. Whatever makes us (all of us) the way we are . . . these influences can be present in varying degrees. So what?
What evidence do you have that (assuming there is a continuum) that there is a normal distribution involved? I can think of lots of reasons that the distribution would be other than normal (ie, Gaussian).
I thought “normal” and “gaussian” are the same thing?
(All your other posts are always coherent so I assume this was a textual oversight.)
I thought this was one of his worst points. A man having more older brothers is much more of an environmental factor that a genetic one. If you are the youngest of four brothers, what genetic aspect comes into play that would make you more/less likely to be a homosexual?
Also, these ideas that attraction to an opposite sex person is a “choice” is almost silly. That attraction is necessary for the continuation of the human species. That seems to imply that nature would prefer a heterosexual lifestyle.
Whether a homosexual lifestyle is a valid alternative to that for some people is not GQ material, and it certainly wouldn’t necessarily be forbidden by the laws of nature for that reason only…
John does not suggest in any way, shape or form that genetics plays a role here. I don’t know how you could possibly miss this point, but there it is.
Again, no one is actually suggesting that’s the case. The point whorfin was making was that those who disparage homosexuality as a choice also seem to sidestep the necessary corollary of that being true: heterosexuality must also be a choice. His position is not, as you claim, the position that heterosexuality is a choice.
And this is my point. IMO, the strongest evidence that same-sex attraction is inherent is the (overhwelming) evidence that sexual preferences or attraction are inherent, and the strongest evidence of that is in the context of opposite-sex attraction.
It’s a lot clearer to see how opposite-sex attraction is inherent. Once that is agreed upon, I look to the undeniable evidence that there are individuals who have attraction/preferences for those of their own gender that is, (at least to the extent that we can evaluate it, which is mainly through self-report), similar to that observed in those who are attracted to the opposite gender.
With those as our premises, it seems straightforward to hypothesize that these two (broad) categories (surely, as many note, on a spectrum) are both caused by the same process, specifically, some kind of inherent or genetic preference.
The alternative hypothesis (that opposite-sex attraction is inherent, and same-sex attraction is a choice) requires the addition of an unnecessary and difficult-to-explain step that causes two very similar things (same-sex and opposite-sex attraction), which differ only in the gender to which the individual in question is attracted, to be created by entirely different processes.
(and as to adaption–the fact that one may be better adapted is meaningless-as diversity and variation is a necessary prerequisite to any kind of adaption through selection. )
(and I must thank Q.E.D. for clearly and coherently expressing the point I’m trying to make while I was drafting this post.)
Not genetic, but the hypothesis is that hormonal conditions in the womb are different. Link
As a gay man I can see this as getting more inconclusive, the reason is as homosexuality is more accepted, more people are willing to try.
This clouds the study, how do you define a homosexual? Well you can’t it’s a self applied lable. Like the press calling Obama or Tiger Woods an African-American though Obama is as much white and Woods is as much Asian as black.
Does one sex act a homosexual make? I have seen young kids today that are like “Well I’m horny and I can’t find a girl, so I’ll just ‘get my rocks off’,” so to speak.
I think you’d have to look at sexual orientation as a preference. Why do some people like chocolate and some hate it. Why do some people like feet and others don’t. Why do some people love to fly. while others are scared to. Why are some kids outgoing and friendly while others are painfully shy?
I think by focusing on the “sex” part and not on the preference, you lose focus. I would take that in a general way, why do people in general do the things they do?
I think you meant “oysters and snails”. 
But that really doesn’t make sense. What we like and don’t like to eat isn’t much of a choice. I don’t like Brussels Sprouts, but I can’t imagine saying that is a “preference”.
I don’t know of anyone who believes that homosexuality is a “choice” like whether I want pepperoni or mushrooms on my pizza.
I believe that when people say that it is a “choice”, they are simply denying that there is a genetic component to it, and that homosexuality is a result of the childhood environment.
I know that people use the word “choice” but I don’t think anyone believes that it is a simple thing. And if homosexuality was a choice, it does not necessarily follow that heterosexuality is a choice.
Just to respond to this-I might agree that in the abstract, the two are not necessarily related.
However, there are gay people out there. In my own, very anecdotal experience, the way they’re attracted to those of their own gender looks a whole lot like the way people are attracted to those of the opposite gender. Given that, it seems probable that same-sex and opposite-sex attraction develop in the same way. So while, at least in theory, the two might be independent, I can’t think of why, and have pointed to lots of evidence that suggests a common origin.
To put it another way, the OP asks “where’s the evidence that ‘gay people were born gay?’” I’d first ask the OP how the OP feels his/her own preferences were determined. I’m going to go out on a limb here, and guess that the OP thinks they are inherent.
Then, I’d suggest that as a starting point, people with different preferences also got their own preferences that way.
As has been endlessly noted, I don’t think opposite-sex attraction is a choice. I base that on how I figured out who I was attracted to, combined with the strong evidence that opposite-sex attraction is inherent. I also consider the similarity between same-sex and opposite-sex attraction, and conclude that the evidence is pretty strong that it works the same way for each. Further, I can think of no internally consistent justification for why the two have entirely different origins, which I feel strengthens my answer to the OP’s question.
Further, as I have already noted, many arguments about where same-sex attraction develops (say, during childhood, as you propose), seem on their face to be about where sexual attraction preferences develop. I haven’t seen any such argument that is in any way convincing as to why it only applies to the development of same-sex preferences, rather than sexual preferences in general.
To stay in GQ, all I’ll say is that I’m skeptical of any argument that tries to explain how same-sex attraction develops, but that cannot also explain how opposite-sex attraction develops (either that the two have the same origin, or explaining why the two have different origins).