Homosexuality

[afleitch]

I do doubt that sexual preference is a choice, though (excluding rape) sexual activity is.

As is eating and drinking; if you want to get all technical about it. And while abstaining from sexual activity won't kill us, it isn't particularly psychologically healthy. There is no reason to advise someone to abstain completely from homosexual behaviour if they are gay except for doctrinal (and usually religious doctrinal) reasons.

[J. J.]

I do doubt that sexual preference is a choice, though (excluding rape) sexual activity is.

As is eating and drinking; if you want to get all technical about it. And while abstaining from sexual activity won't kill us, it isn't particularly psychologically healthy. There is no reason to advise someone to abstain completely from homosexual behaviour if they are gay except for doctrinal (and usually religious doctrinal) reasons.

I'm not suggesting anything, except sexual behavior (except for rape, obviously), is voluntary.  That applies to homosexual, heterosexual and bisexual behavior.  I am not advising any consenting adults to abstain, only noting the fact.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Funny, Polnut and I posted much the same thing within three hours of each other.

a) because we rock

b) because I don't read posts above me thoroughly

[Frink]

Who cares? Live and let live.

...

Well played.

[courts]

Democrat: genetic

Meaning it comes from God, so trying to suppress it is in the sin, not acting on it.

Nice logic ya got there Zach.

[DreamTheater]

Neither. It's obviously not genetic, because a "gay" gene would die out rather quickly. And there's not much evidence to say that its a lifestyle choice.

[politicus]

Neither. It's obviously not genetic, because a "gay" gene would die out rather quickly. And there's not much evidence to say that its a lifestyle choice.

Nah, not that simple, passive genes can be passed on.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Here's a reply I made to the same guy in a different thread in this same board.

I definitely don't think homosexuality is a choice, however, it is equally absurd to think it is caused by a gene, because I'm pretty sure a "gay" gene would die out rather quickly.

I have no idea whether there is a gay gene or not, but the concept is hardly absurd.  There are any number of genes for which having one copy is beneficial while having two has a baneful effect.  For example, if one takes the stereotypes of being gay as being correlated with greater creativity, compassion, etc. as true, then gays would improve the chances that their non-gay siblings (who would have a 2 in 3 chance of carrying a recessive gay gene if there be such a thing) are able to have offspring who reproduce successfully.

So in other words, gays could be like worker ants and bees.  They wouldn't have descendents of their own, but help their close relatives to have them.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The predisposition to same-sex attraction is probably at least in part genetic, along with some element of socialization, any activity that could affect hormone levels, etc.

But, to act upon those attractions is not genetic at all. People also have the ability to not engage in a sex act or to enter into a certain relationship. So if we take homosexuality to be an act rather than an attraction (the word 'homosexuality' may be ambiguous in this respect, though I haven't met many celibate people who experience same-sex attraction who call themselves homosexuals so I am taking it to imply that one has engaged in said acts and is not celibate), then it must be a choice as long as we accept that we have the ability to make choices, ie. free will. If we have no free will then this is all a moot point anyway, so I'd consider "lifestyle choice" to be a more representative reflection of my view than "genetic" but that I'd rather select "Both" if I could.

Breathing and eating should also be classified as "lifestyle choices" then.

What we eat is largely a lifestyle choice, as is how much we eat.  It isn't absolute free will, but it is close.

That's actually probably untrue.  Obesity has high heritability, somewhere around .80 (higher than height, even!).  A lot of that is likely due to different food preferences which might be essentially hardwired.  I'm somewhat of a supertaster, for example, and my eating habits reflect that; consequently, I'm not overweight.  It's hard to imagine the number of taste buds on my tongue not at least partially being a product of genetics

That's not to say you can't help your weight entirely, of course.  But most people don't try to do things completely out of sync with what their body tells them.

This is very interesting.  Thanks Verin.  I may have found out that I have supertaster qualities as well. 

While I love cabbage and brussel sprouts, I have a strong aversion to bitter foods... and though I love the flavor of chili peppers, the burn is incredibly painful.  In fact, it is not much less intense than, say, burning the sensitive area on the bottom of your wrist on a hot griddle.

Olives and tonic water are repulsive to me... as are bitter greens and many alcoholic beverages.

Well, yay.. at least I can be super at something.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It might not be scientifically impossible, but why assume a genetic determination before it's proven? Most of our preferences of any kind do not have a precisely determined origin - they are just part of our personality. Until there is some scientific evidence, I don't see the point of wondering about this. Nobody's wondering if our preferences on food, sports, or hobbies are genetic or not.

[DemPGH]

Well, I know that homosexuality is observed in nature and I know that for me, my heterosexuality was never a choice. So I don't know, it could be like why a person has a certain personality or develops a certain kind of distinct identity. And sometimes a person's identity fluctuates, like their sexuality, but I do not think that homosexuality is a conscious choice that one sits down and makes, I think it's a lot more complex than that, probably tied more closely to one's identity. 

[afleitch]

Well, I know that homosexuality is observed in nature and I know that for me, my heterosexuality was never a choice. So I don't know, it could be like why a person has a certain personality or develops a certain kind of distinct identity. And sometimes a person's identity fluctuates, like their sexuality, but I do not think that homosexuality is a conscious choice that one sits down and makes, I think it's a lot more complex than that, probably tied more closely to one's identity. 

What is interesting is how unwilling people are to subject heterosexuality to the same scrutiny; i.e the idea that homosexuality may not quite be genetic (so let's not be too hasty in the whole 'rights' thing) yet heterosexuality somehow is, yet both as you say are observed patterns of sexual behaviour in nature. Understanding one is the key to understanding the other.The very fact that same sex behaviour is exhibited by me and by a seagull, despite several hundred millions years of evolution between us and there continues to be same sex orientated seagulls, cats, whales, monkeys and humans despite each successive generation dying off suggests it is a genetic trait. Indeed it occurs in every observed animal species that reproduces by procreation (which as a group of living things is coinicidently in the minority), and procreation is as much a social act as it is a sexual one. So it's interesting.

[SPC]

Where's Other/Both? Obviously there are components of both that determine whether one becomes homosexual or not; if it weren't, the frequency of one's identical twin being homosexual given that one is homosexual would be closer to 100% (if it were entirely genetic) or 10% (if it were entirely environmental/lifestyle choice), rather than the actual value of approximately 50%. While the advocates of genetically-determined sexuality certainly have a point with the examples of homosexuality elsewhere in the animal kingdom, are we supposed to believe that there was just something different (one might even say queer) in the gene pool in Ancient Greece?

[DreamTheater]

Neither. It's obviously not genetic, because a "gay" gene would die out rather quickly. And there's not much evidence to say that its a lifestyle choice.

Nah, not that simple, passive genes can be passed on.

True, but anytime someone got two copies of the gene, they wouldn't have offspring, and slowly but surely, the gene would die out. Unless the gene is from a relatively recent mutation, I don't see any way there could be a gay gene. I think homosexuality is most likely caused by something that happens in the womb, which in fact my psychology teacher mentioned is one of the current leading theories on the cause of homosexuality.

[SPC]

Neither. It's obviously not genetic, because a "gay" gene would die out rather quickly. And there's not much evidence to say that its a lifestyle choice.

Nah, not that simple, passive genes can be passed on.

True, but anytime someone got two copies of the gene, they wouldn't have offspring, and slowly but surely, the gene would die out. Unless the gene is from a relatively recent mutation, I don't see any way there could be a gay gene. I think homosexuality is most likely caused by something that happens in the womb, which in fact my psychology teacher mentioned is one of the current leading theories on the cause of homosexuality.

That's why Tay-Sachs was eradicated, right?

[DreamTheater]

That's why it's very rare. And it will probably die out in the next couple thousand years.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

That's why it's very rare. And it will probably die out in the next couple thousand years.

DreamTheater, circa. 1000 BCE: "[see above]"

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What is interesting is how unwilling people are to subject heterosexuality to the same scrutiny

normative

[Person Man]

Is it necesary for it to be genetic or a conscious decision?  Could it be a cultural thing, an adaptive thing or perhaps something biological that happens after birth (exposure to certain chemicals when you are predisposed to become gay when exposed to them..like an autoimmunity or leaky gut thing or even if you change your body somehow)? Or it could be all of the above and in different level of incidence between males and females.

[Thomas D]

Where is the option for 'My dad never hugged me'?   

[Person Man]

Or the one that "I am in really good shape like those guys that are gay and women just nag me too much".

[Goldwater]

Genetic (R).

[Insula Dei]

Do I feel the need to weigh in on this?

Of course I do.

1. @Afleitch: Yeah, heterosexuality isn't 'just' genetical either. Not that hard to admit to that.

Consider child X. If nothing out of the ordinary were to occur, child X would grow up to become a fully functional heterosexual. Chil X is brutally abused. Constatation: child X grows up to be something other than a fully functional heterosexual. Child X may have trouble staying in relations, choosing the right partners, or just not be capable of sex. It may even turn homosexual. No way of knowing what could happen.

Most of us have never been abused. But look back at that first paragraph: do you really think 'nothing out of the ordinary' is any less formative than abuse? Think again. We're formed, at least to some degree, by our experiences, and it isn't because sexual abuse is so completely awful that it would be any more formative than that one picture you used to keep looking at in that book of fairy tales you had as a 5 year old. You know the one.

2. If you have a rubber ball and you kick it, it will react different from a metal ball you kick with the same angle and the same force. Hello genetics.

3. Homosexual animals do not exist.

You may have animals that engage in sexual activity with the same gender. Sure. I somewhat doubt there are animals that do so consistently, to the exclusion of al other sexual activity. But even that is definitely possible. I don't know the science. What I would be somewhat willing to bet is that if you were to look at any case of animal homosexuality, you'd find strong indications of environmental factors playing a massive role in this. I'd even be willing to predict the n° 1 environmental factor contributing to same-sex intercourse: captivity.

But none of that's the reason that animal homosexuality does not exist. The reason animal homosexuality does not exist is the exact same reason animal heterosexuality does not exist. Animals don't think and, even more importantly, they don't speak. No animal has ever looked at itself and thought 'I am homosexual'. Animals don't define themselves in function of their behaviour, sexual or otherwise. Animals just plain do not define themselves.

4. You sleep with men, but you call yourself a homosexual. (Or gay, have your pick). See the difference?

5. How absurd is it to define yourself in function of who you sleep with? Might as well define yourself by what you eat, right? Or, wait for it, by what arbitrary genitals you happen to have, eh? Oh, wait.

This is the core of what being human is about. We speak, and we speak about ourselves. And after we've spoken, we take what's been said deadly seriously. You care about your gender. You care absurdly much about your gender. You care about your gender identity to the point where you're willing to go the extra mile to claim it. Looking at you Nathan.

You laugh at Lacan, but at the end of the day a pun can really make you sick to the core of your being. Here are four words which can make you ill: 'I am a man'.

6. Back to homosexuality. What is it I've been saying? a) (homo)sexual behaviour is not innate, and b) (homo)sexuality is a construct. Those are not value judgments. Look at like this: (insert any great piece of art you want here) didn't grow on a tree either. Welcome to the human race.

[DemPGH]

Well, I know that homosexuality is observed in nature and I know that for me, my heterosexuality was never a choice. So I don't know, it could be like why a person has a certain personality or develops a certain kind of distinct identity. And sometimes a person's identity fluctuates, like their sexuality, but I do not think that homosexuality is a conscious choice that one sits down and makes, I think it's a lot more complex than that, probably tied more closely to one's identity. 

What is interesting is how unwilling people are to subject heterosexuality to the same scrutiny; i.e the idea that homosexuality may not quite be genetic (so let's not be too hasty in the whole 'rights' thing) yet heterosexuality somehow is, yet both as you say are observed patterns of sexual behaviour in nature. Understanding one is the key to understanding the other.The very fact that same sex behaviour is exhibited by me and by a seagull, despite several hundred millions years of evolution between us and there continues to be same sex orientated seagulls, cats, whales, monkeys and humans despite each successive generation dying off suggests it is a genetic trait. Indeed it occurs in every observed animal species that reproduces by procreation (which as a group of living things is coinicidently in the minority), and procreation is as much a social act as it is a sexual one. So it's interesting.

Yeah, I agree with you. Many times the erroneous view is taken that because a behavior is exhibited by the minority and because it's a behavior that the majority cannot relate to, it's somehow not normal. Which is simply not the case. Example: while it's much more overtly genetic, nature produces a small minority of green-eyed people. The vast majority are blue-eyed or brown-eyed, but nature produces green eyes. I think sexuality is a bit more complex than just genetics, but I think that's an appropriate analogy. Nature certainly produces homosexuality. The "it's a choice" argument reduces sexuality to something like, what do I feel like wearing today? And it's much more complicated than that, tied closely to the fiber of an individual's being.

At any rate, here's an interesting National Geo piece on homosexuality in the animal kingdom. It's pretty interesting:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

[memphis]

Why do Darwinian arguments always focus exclusively on the individual? We don't live in a vacuum, and neither did our ancestors. Societies must be equally fit or individuals will not survive. Perhaps the gays are a force that makes society stronger. It makes a lot of sense to me that it's good to have a small part of the population who is unemcumbered by the need to care for children and are, therefore, able to attend to other matters.