Again, this is GQ, but I feel confident in stating that the position of some people would be that heterosexuality is a natural part of existence, as proven by its necessity in the promotion of the species.
And that same view would hold that homosexuality is a deviation, an abnormal sort of sexual behavior which doesn’t lend itself to a natural purpose. Hence, it can’t be “natural”, it must derive from an environmental cause…
But that position really says nothing about whether it’s inherent.
First, again, if same-sex attraction is developed through environmental factors, what are they? Do those factors not also affect opposite-sex attraction? If not, why not? That is why I have trouble with such an argument-I can completely accept that environmental factors affect who one is attracted to. But i can’t understand why they’re “smart” factors that only affect same-sex attraction.
In fact, arguing that hetrosexuality is adaptive, and has developed through selection is close to admitting that same-sex attraction is also inherent.
-but
a)accepting that admits that the way attraction is determined is inherent (or else, it would not be inheritable), and
b) that there is variation in the level of inherent attraction to the opposite gender. What is one extreme of that variation? Attraction to the same gender.
Hence, the fact that same-sex attraction may not make someone more likely to reproduce doesn’t mean that it isn’t inherent-and the argument that same-sex attraction is “natural” implicitly asserts that attraction is developed inherently.
That statement makes no sense whatsoever in a scientific sense especially in regards to evolutionary theory but also environmental biology. If that is a serious statement from you, there are people here that can destroy it like a hungry pack of piranhas on a bloated dead cow in drying up pond. I hope you aren’t serious because that that statement packs some serious scientific ignorance in a small package and I mean that. It doesn’t even have much to do with the subject at hand. It could be anything. I think you just made one of my brain lobes blow.
Sterility doesn’t lend itself to “natural purpose” and yet it needn’t be derived from environmental cause.
Well all right then, my own case brings up a burning question. In light of the fantasy I had at the age of 5, and total lack of any opposite-sex fantasies, it’s clear to me that my sexual preference. and sub-preferences within it, were firmly established by that age. So much so, that the entirety of society’s influences . . . and they are overwhelming . . . have had absolutely no effect on me. I grew up in the 50s, when there were no pro-gay opinions floating around; I literally thought I was the only one. The entirety of humanity gave me every incentive to go straight, but had no effect on my attraction to males.
Which raises the question: What existed in my “environment” to cause such a deep-seated characteristic that that the constant bombardment of propaganda from society had no power to reverse? Mustn’t there have been some huge traumatic event in my childhood that left this equally-huge permanent scar on my psyche? Something that had absolutely no effect on my brother? But there was no such thing. I have an excellent memory of my early childhood, and I have no recollection of being molested or seduced or traumatized in any way.* So anyone claiming that I was somehow “traumatized” into homosexuality, would have to explain exactly what that trauma was.
*Nor do I have a memory of something totally wonderful happening to me that unfortunately never happened to most people, blocking their capacity to be homosexual.
But, you would admit that sterility is a disorder, no?
Well, I am not an expert in anything but my own sexuality and I can tell you I did not make a decision to be what I am, it just happened that way. I am not saying I was born that way but that it had zero to do with my making any choices. Most people straight or gay say the same thing so it seems reasonable to assume it is true. Whether the sexual orientation is a matter of birth or influenced by later events in childhood I don’t know but I think when many people say you were born that way what they really mean is that you had no choice of your own.
Yes. And while I wouldn’t necessarily say that homosexuality is a disorder, it would seem reasonable to assume that heterosexuality came first. I would equate homosexuality with something more akin to being left handed. For one thing, it doesn’t stop people from procreating, even if it might lessen their chances of doing so, but it’s also quite possible that whatever causes homosexuality is necessarily part of what makes our species what it is. There almost certainly is an overlap in the mechanisms that drive romantic love and those that drive just friendship and the kind of love that people can have for each other w/o being sexually attracted to each other. But I stray into GD territory…
You seem to have trouble assembling a chain of logic here. What multiple people are trying to tell you is that “deviant” behavior doesn’t necessarily have any connection to the “choice” of that behavior
You can talk about homosexual being “deviant” all day long. Maybe you’re right. Maybe you’re wrong.
You can talk about homosexual being a “choice” or not all day long.
But there is no logical connection between the two.
The word “homosexual” has 5 syllables in it. The word “heterosexual” has 6 syllables. Well, since 5 is less than 6, it must be a sin. What does syllables of a word have to do with sexual preference?! Same situation with “deviance” or “disorder.”
I guess this does stray into GD territory. Being left-handed has no inherent disadvantage to being right-handed, it is just different.
Being a homosexual means you don’t pass your genes on to the next generation. That is the antithesis of survival.
I wasn’t speaking for myself. You would agree that “bad” behaviors (whatever that means to you) can be genetic? Just because you were “born that way” doesn’t mean that it is acceptable…
We don’t know that it has no disadvantages. In fact, it may have an advantage or a disadvantage, depending on the environment. If societies force left-handed people to become right-handed (my cousin went thru that, BTW), wouldn’t that potintially be a disadvantage?
That is not true.
No, it isn’t.
Seriously, I have an academic background in this stuff and you are about to make my mind blow through blatant ignorance. I am also very much 100% heterosexual, mostly a republican, and raised in a very small town in Louisiana where people could not comprehend this. I could not myself at one point.
Homosexuality is most likely not caused by genes. It is caused by sex hormones during development. That is technically “environment” even though it happens in the womb.
Plenty of gay people procreate. Lots of them go into traditional marriages as well only to back out years or decades later although some never do.
You so thoroughly and completely did not answer John Mace’s comment.
You contend that if deviation X does not lend itself to procreation, then that deviation must be environmental.
Again, your words in post #41 were,
John Mace said that sterility is also abnormal and not an environmental response. (I assume you know that some infants are born sterile and will be infertile for the rest of their lives.) Using your deviation=EnvironmentalChoice as a template, you’re saying that sterility is also an EnvironmentalChoice.
So, the the simple and direct question is… Do you believe sterility is caused by Environment and Choice?
Do you understand the words of your own argument or are you just toying with us?
That’s a completely different tangent from the CAUSE/EFFECT relationship you put forth in post #41.
In post #41, you argue the biology of sexual preference. (At least that’s on topic with the OP.)
In post #51, you change the subject and argue the morality of sexual preference.
Not only are you incoherent with regards to someone else’s comments, you can’t seem to maintain coherency within your posts (see inconsistency of #41 and #51.)
A certain amount of ‘gayness’ in a population could aid in species survival, particularly in a social species. You get a few extra caregivers that way. It’s not all about making babies - you also need to ensure the babies grow up to make babies. And human babies are pretty high-maintenance.
It doesn’t even need to be homosexuality directly caused by genetics to be a Darwinian reason for the homosexuality. If a woman carries a genetic trait where after she’s produced ‘enough’ reproducing offspring she starts to produce offspring that don’t reproduce (like, the more older brothers, the more likely gay), this could still be all Darwin’s fault.
So I really disagree that homosexuality is the ‘antithesis’ of species survival.
The question of deviance isn’t likely to get us anywhere; and it doesn’t address the original poster’s question.
Stipulating that “biological” is a more useful term than “genetic” in this case, I’d still be interested in further thoughts about the twin studies. The farthest I can get, on their evidence, is that there may well be a strong environmental element leading to same-sex orientation, and the twin studies do not rule out a biological element; but neither do I see that they support it strongly. Start with the correlation for adopted children; if another in the family is homosexual, an adopted child is also more likely to be homosexual. This, it seems to me, strongly suggests factors in family dynamics or upbringing (though I see nothing to suggest what these factors might be.)
Given this, would there be a reason in the twin studies to think that the correlation for fraternal or identical twins is more strongly influenced by biological factors? Bearing in mind the strong tendency (at least in the United States) to raise twins in as nearly identical a setting as can be managed outside a laboratory?
The type of twin studies that would address your skepticism would be “twins separated at birth.” This would isolate genes, biology, or “environment” in the womb – whatever people want to call it.
Thomas Bouchard did a big study in 1979 mentioned at Minnesota Center for Twin and Family Research - Wikipedia
I can’t find any links with the text of the actual study. However, a web page made this interesting extract:
“In Thomas Bouchard’s study of identical twins separated at birth, there were three pairs of male identical twins in which at least one was homosexual. In two out of three cases, the other twin was homosexual also, despite being raised in a different household and never seeing his twin brother during childhood.”
I’m not saying that Thomas Bouchard’s twin study is the definitive and final word. However, I’m not aware of any new studies that have supplanted it.
Overpopulation is also the antithesis of survival.
Thank you ALL very much for the examples so far. The SDMB impresses me once more; in most other places, this would’ve long since degenerated into a flame war.
The distinction between “biological” (i.e. hormones in the womb) and “genetic” is a subtle but important one; thank you for clearing up my ignorance in that regard.
The use of the term “environmental” (versus merely “choice”) brings up another interesting point that I hadn’t thought about before: Can an individual really be said to have a “choice” in a matter if overwhelming environmental factors caused the formation of that choice? I fear that might be venturing into GD territory, so I started a separate thread instead. I’d still very much like to hear your input, however 
That’s a really good question, but actually, I’d have to disagree and say that I’m not entirely sure how my preferences came to be. I suppose that’s part of the reason I started this thread.
Thinking back to my childhood, my first crush was on a girl, my first semi-sexual dream was of kissing a boy, and my first fully-sexual dream was about a girl. Today, the great majority (over 99%) of my fantasies – both conscious and asleep – are about women, and I’ve never felt anywhere near the same level of attraction towards men (though I’ve idly wondered a couple of times). I’ve only ever been seriously interested in females, but I’ve always questioned if that’s just because I’m semi-consciously suppressing/shaping my desires due to societal pressures.
To bring a separate but related question into the fold: What’s homosexuality like in societies that are more accepting of it? Is there more homosexual activity in environments that do not pressure members to conform to heterosexuality, and if so, is there any way to discount increases caused merely by a greater willingness to self-identify? In other words, do societies shape the sexuality of its members on deeper levels at all, or do more accepting ones simply make it easier for members to be open about it?
I’m unclear as to why this distinction is important. Your question was “born” gay as opposed to being “fertilized” gay or “gestated” as gay. “Born” happens after “fertilize” and “gestate.” Therefore, while the distinction between genes and hormones is real, it appears academic with regards to your actual question.
(Yes, you did also use the word “genetic” in your original post, but I assumed it was a casual non-scientific use of the word “genetic” because you immediately reworded it as “born gay” in the very next phrase.)