Is homosexuality genetic?

[TubbaBlubba]

Are there really protestants born to catholics though?

Yes, presumably, oh I don't know, Martin Luther?

 

[Aridas]

The specific purpose of the usage is this thread; namely, a discussion as to whether or not "homosexuality" is genetic. I didn't realize that could be so confusing.

Seems to me that you're trying to change the subject. Still, let's take a step back and look at what, exactly, seems to be going on, now that power drills aren't reverberating through my head and I'm not barely awake.

I always find such discussions very odd, because they are predicated on what seems to me a fact not at all in evidence - that there are two categories, homosexual or heterosexual, and that it make sense to say that people are either one or the other. The obvious exceptions (bisexuals, people that change sexual preference, etc.) are regarded as either singular exceptions, or as people who took a long time to figure out their "true" orientation or are just pretending.

Here, you're announcing your position and presenting your objections to a dualistic view. There haven't been many people on in this thread who have been a proponent of this dualistic view, I think, so... It's in the range of almost a straw man. It isn't, quite, because you're not saying that anyone relevant to this particular discussion is saying that.

If you go back even a century or so, you'd find that no category of "homosexual" existed. People didn't classify people that way. If anything, over much of human history the sexual distinction was between active and passive, giving and receiving, or male and female - but none of those distinctions (except the last) were thought of as something fundamental or permanent (and even gender was thought to be an accident, whether in a womb your penis ended up external, or inverted and internal, i.e. a vagina).

Here, you're presenting information. Not backed up with outside references, but... that's fine, really, and leaves it in the halfway reliable range. Indeed, I would agree that, I, too, have heard that, in the past, the cultural views on the matter have differed. Cultural views are tangentially related to the topic, and can certainly be interesting, but they are, at best, very weak evidence for any position on the topic currently in question. I'm much less sure about the accuracy of the time period that you cited, to note.

So I think the whole discussion of whether homosexuality is genetic is based on a very questionable premise - that there is such a distinction. It's like trying to decide whether liking or not liking broccoli is genetic. Sure, there might be some genes that influence that, but there's obviously an environmental and situational component too, people's preferences change with time, with how the broccoli is prepared, what it's mixed with, etc.

A reasonable premise to investigate.

I'm not saying it can't be - in fact I'd be very surprised if there aren't any genes that influence sexual preference. I just think that what seems to be a basic, underlying premise of this discussion - that people come in two categories, and that split requires an explanation - is unsupported and quite probably untrue.

Now, here's when it turns more into a straw man argument, given discussion much past the OP.

A fair percentage of those who have posted here seem to be more of the opinion that bisexuality is the case for a large percentage of people, with varying genetically and/or early developmentally determined baselines for where on the spread of bisexuality they are. Various cultural, psychological, etc. factors can certainly affect one's choice of partners and admitted desires, within those bounds. As for explanation... it's about as simple as "we want to know everything about how things work, if possible."

And here's an attempt to illustrate why your position turns more into a straw man, without directly calling you out on it.

OK, that's a more reasonable position. But it still implies that there's a one-dimensional continuum from "homo" to "hetero", and I doubt even that is true.

I admit, I have difficulty understanding how, if you're only considering two variables that are usually considered opposites, like, say, hot and cold, that there's any reason to cast doubt on whether a continuum can be reasonably shown between them, unless, of course, you were continuing on the assumption that you were still arguing against a dualistic view of only "hetero" or "homo."

I suspect it's just entirely the wrong way of looking at it. As I mentioned before, these categories didn't even exist until very recently.

Vague assertion of wrongness. Assumption based on weak evidence.

Would you look for a genetic explanation of which German Christians are Protestant and which are Catholic, and which are somewhere in between but influenced by "cultural, psychological, etc. factors"?

Bad argument, in general. The only way that this argument works is if you start and end with the position that sexual preference is solely a social/cultural construct. If you had dealt with "faith," you might have an argument. If you were really stretching it, "religion" could be justified, too. At the level of specific religions, your argument has no chance whatsoever. It's like you're trying to argue that "to be a Mexican, you must be wearing a sombrero," or, "if you don't speak with a lisp, you're not a homosexual." Granted, those are put in far more direct terms, but that's roughly the level of logic in your argument. In short, it's irrelevant to the matter at hand and a bad argument, in general.

How do you know? And if that is true, why is it that the category "homosexual" didn't even exist as a concept until quite recently?

It's like your entire argument is based on trying to argue this, alone. Given that it is, as stated, weak evidence, resting your argument on it doesn't seem like a wise thing to do, to me, especially given that you seem to be trying to say that sexual preference may well have genetic influences, but that heterosexuality and homosexuality are recent social/cultural concepts, as opposed to simply labels. Frankly, I'd point you to animal behavior, first, as something that likely provides stronger evidence against this view, though.

Since you've repeatedly failed to support your points, though, how about this link to deal more directly with your argument? Funnily enough, your representation of the matter doesn't seem to work all that well.

My point is that the categorization you (and many others) in this thread are assuming exists is very probably does not.

And here, it has officially become a straw man, with little question.

So if it's something so basic to human nature and so easy to define as you seem to believe, why was it not even recognized as a concept until recently?

This argument is terrible, too. Insert "placebo effect," for example, and voila! The logic here cracks. That said, I doubt that you've even seen the the real problem with your entire argument. Let's see if I can illuminate you.

Your argument is based on presenting insufficient data, misrepresenting it, and asking that conclusions be reached based solely on that. Rhetoric, in other words, and little substance.

You know where else such arguments can be found? Intelligent Design theory. They're just as bad, there.

Of course that older point of view might have been mistaken - maybe "hetero versus homo" really is a sensible way to categorize sexual preference, and maybe it really could have an unambiguous genetic basis. But if so that remains to be established, and it should not be implicitly assumed as a basis for discussion.

Right, so, again, straw man against dualism that you initially posted. It's almost like you're too busy trying to argue against yourself to understand what others actually say.

 

[Cheetah]

Sexual preference is central to the continued existence of a species and has to have been greatly influenced by evolution. It absolutely cannot be equated to things like the choice of a preferred religion or a preferred food like broccoli vs cauliflower, those are just arbitrary.

 

[Pup]

Sexual preference is central to the continued existence of a species and has to have been greatly influenced by evolution. It absolutely cannot be equated to things like the choice of a preferred religion or a preferred food like broccoli vs cauliflower, those are just arbitrary.

That brings up a good point. There are some food preferences which do impact survival, and I expect that they're widespread enough that they could be considered genetic.

For example, people's general love of fats and sugars.

In a hunter-gatherer world, where people are trying to get the most food-calories per unit of energy expended, those things are calorie dense, but rare. The people who gorged when fruit was in season, someone raided a bee hive or a particularly fat animal was killed, could store up extra energy for the lean times.

Those who turned down the calorie-dense foods when they had a choice, because they actually prefered fibrous roots and lean meat, would be thinner already and less prepared to survive the times when they had no choice what to eat.

Broccoli vs cauliflower--no survival difference. Chocolate cookie vs. sugar cookie--no survival difference. Cookie vs. broccoli--survival difference.

So, like sexual preference, I expect there's a genetic component that contributes to survival, and a cultural component that fine tunes the basic drives.

Edited to add: As far as sexual preference, I suspect it might have been something like: High sex drive (within reason)--good for survival. A certain proportion of "gay aunts and uncles"--good for survival of nieces and nephews. Some fluidity between gay vs straight--useful because it increases adaptability, but otherwise, free to be culturally influenced.

 

[dogjones]

Yes it is genetic, not one tree is gay.

Paul

They're pretty perverted though.

 

[sol invictus]

Sexual preference is central to the continued existence of a species and has to have been greatly influenced by evolution. It absolutely cannot be equated to things like the choice of a preferred religion or a preferred food like broccoli vs cauliflower, those are just arbitrary.

Really? You don't think preferring certain foods is important to continued existence? I don't think someone that prefers to eat rocks is going to live very long.

Instead, people like certain tastes in part because of genetics. But it's also pretty clear that there's a non-genetic component too, and in any case, that it would be pretty silly to characterize people by any one-dimensional or binary distribution on the basis of cauliflower versus broccoli preference. The latter was the point.

As for religion, I suspect it's been around for more than long enough to have a significant impact on evolution. Whether it actually did, I don't know.

 

[sol invictus]

Your post is just too long, so I'm not going to respond to everything.

I admit, I have difficulty understanding how, if you're only considering two variables that are usually considered opposites, like, say, hot and cold, that there's any reason to cast doubt on whether a continuum can be reasonably shown between them, unless, of course, you were continuing on the assumption that you were still arguing against a dualistic view of only "hetero" or "homo."

There you go again: "usually considered opposites". That's perfectly illustrates my point. What's the logical reason to consider them opposites?

Do you think there's a spectrum between "liking broccoli" (B) and "liking cauliflower" (C), and it's reasonable to characterize people as B or C, with a few odd exceptions on the "continuum" in between?

That's clearly silly, because some people like both, some neither, some like one sometimes and the other sometimes, many people change their opinions with time or how it's prepared or what it's served with or what wine they're drinking, etc. etc.

So presumably you don't think that - but you've been unable to articulate how you think that's different from sexual preference.

Would you look for a genetic explanation of which German Christians are Protestant and which are Catholic, and which are somewhere in between but influenced by "cultural, psychological, etc. factors"?

Bad argument, in general. The only way that this argument works...

So if it's something so basic to human nature and so easy to define as you seem to believe, why was it not even recognized as a concept until recently?

This argument is terrible, too. Insert...

"Argument"? What arguments? Those are questions, not arguments.

Since you've repeatedly failed to support your points, though, how about this link to deal more directly with your argument? Funnily enough, your representation of the matter doesn't seem to work all that well.

I read the section on history. It agrees very well with what I've been saying (not surprisingly, since I'm simply repeating what I learned from reading historians). So... what was your point?

 

[Aridas]

There you go again: "usually considered opposites". That's perfectly illustrates my point. What's the logical reason to consider them opposites?

Name other relevant points worthy of consideration.

Do you think there's a spectrum between "liking broccoli" (B) and "liking cauliflower" (C), and it's reasonable to characterize people as B or C, with a few odd exceptions on the "continuum" in between?

Hey, look! It's your straw man, again! Seriously, just stop, if you're unable to discuss the matter.

That's clearly silly, because some people like both, some neither, some like one sometimes and the other sometimes, many people change their opinions with time or how it's prepared or what it's served with or what wine they're drinking, etc. etc.

All of this? Totally irrelevant to the question at hand. Why? Let's see... 1) Your straw man, again. 2) Your straw man, again. 3) Your straw man again. 4) Your straw man, again. 5) "To be a Mexican, you must be wearing a sombrero" quality.

Hmm. I see a pattern in your arguments.

So presumably you don't think that - but you've been unable to articulate how you think that's different from sexual preference.

As opposed to simply being amused that you even find it to be a valid question?

"Argument"? What arguments? Those are questions, not arguments.

Riiiiiiight. You don't know much about what an argument is do you? You're trying to use those questions to convince others of your point. Therefore, it's an argument.

I read the section on history. It agrees very well with what I've been saying (not surprisingly, since I'm simply repeating what I learned from reading historians). So... what was your point?

Really? Try reading it again, more carefully, then see how well it actually matches with what you've been arguing. Granted, given how well you've been articulating yourself, it may not, actually, contradict your position. In that case, though, you've just been doing a very, very bad job at getting your point across, here.

Perhaps, you should lay down exactly the points that you're trying to make and the conclusions that you're trying to support, again, just to make sure that others aren't misinterpreting what you say?

Edited to add:

Really? You don't think preferring certain foods is important to continued existence?

Certain types of food or certain foods? You're making no distinction.

I don't think someone that prefers to eat rocks is going to live very long.[/QUOTE]

Funny. This, too, could be considered a straw man. No one's argued for this point and it's a gross mischaracterization of the discussion.

Instead, people like certain tastes in part because of genetics. But it's also pretty clear that there's a non-genetic component too, and in any case, that it would be pretty silly to characterize people by any one-dimensional or binary distribution on the basis of cauliflower versus broccoli preference. The latter was the point.

Not a very good point, though, by any stretch.

As for religion, I suspect it's been around for more than long enough to have a significant impact on evolution. Whether it actually did, I don't know.

That depends. "Religion" encompasses a lot of potential things. That said, it has, doubtless, played a role in natural selection. Generally a rather localized and frequently (relatively speaking) changing role, which reduces effects that it may have greatly.

 

[sol invictus]

Name other relevant points worthy of consideration.

Sorry?

Hey, look! It's your straw man, again! Seriously, just stop, if you're unable to discuss the matter.

If it's a straw man, you should be able to explain why it's different from sexual preference in some way that's relevant to this discussion. But you evidently cannot - you just keep asserting that it's different.

Really? Try reading it again, more carefully, then see how well it actually matches with what you've been arguing. Granted, given how well you've been articulating yourself, it may not, actually, contradict your position. In that case, though, you've just been doing a very, very bad job at getting your point across, here.

Umm, no. That's not how this works. If you think there's something in that document - which is rather long - that contradicts or undermines what I've said, you need to point out what it is. Merely linking to it and saying "read it again" doesn't cut it and won't convince anyone.

 

[sol invictus]

Here are some quotes from that document:

As has been frequently noted, the ancient Greeks did not have terms or concepts that correspond to the contemporary dichotomy of ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’.
...
Probably the most frequent assumption of sexual orientation is that persons can respond erotically to beauty in either sex.
...
Some persons were noted for their exclusive interests in persons of one gender....Such persons, however, are generally portrayed as the exception.
...
Gender just becomes irrelevant “detail” and instead the excellence in character and beauty is what is most important
...
The central distinction in ancient Greek sexual relations was between taking an active or insertive role, versus a passive or penetrated one.

And the comment of mine that started this:

over much of human history the sexual distinction was between active and passive, giving and receiving, or male and female - but none of those distinctions (except the last) were thought of as something fundamental or permanent

You were saying?

 

[FattyCatty]

<snip>
Since you've repeatedly failed to support your points, though, how about this link to deal more directly with your argument? Funnily enough, your representation of the matter doesn't seem to work all that well.
<snip>

I disagree with your conclusion. I agree with sol invictus' point. And I don't think you've proved sol invictus wrong with your link.

My reading of the point sol invictus made in his first post was that the assumption that heterosexuality and homosexuality were exclusive opposites was wrong. Therefore, the argument about genetic causes of homosexuality is based on a false premise. He went on to reiterate that point in subsequent posts.

I always find such discussions very odd, because they are predicated on what seems to me a fact not at all in evidence - that there are two categories, homosexual or heterosexual, and that it make sense to say that people are either one or the other.
<snip>
So I think the whole discussion of whether homosexuality is genetic is based on a very questionable premise - that there is such a distinction.

...that people come in two categories, and that split requires an explanation - is unsupported and quite probably untrue

...I suspect it's just entirely the wrong way of looking at it. As I mentioned before, these categories didn't even exist until very recently.
<snip>

Your link actually agrees with sol invictus' point. See here:

As has been frequently noted, the ancient Greeks did not have terms or concepts that correspond to the contemporary dichotomy of ‘heterosexual’ and ‘homosexual’. There is a wealth of material from ancient Greece pertinent to issues of sexuality, ranging from dialogues of Plato, such as the Symposium, to plays by Aristophanes, and Greek artwork and vases. What follows is a brief description of ancient Greek attitudes, but it is important to recognize that there was regional variation. For example, in parts of Ionia there were general strictures against same-sex eros, while in Elis and Boiotia (e.g., Thebes), it was approved of and even celebrated (cf. Dover, 1989; Halperin, 1990).

Note that the "dichotomy of 'heterosexual' and 'homosexual'" is considered contemporary. I think that this is what sol invictus has been saying. It's not a true dichotomy, that concept is recent and not necessarily true.

The article goes on to say:

Probably the most frequent assumption of sexual orientation is that persons can respond erotically to beauty in either sex. Diogenes Laeurtius, for example, wrote of Alcibiades, the Athenian general and politician of the 5th century B.C., “in his adolescence he drew away the husbands from their wives, and as a young man the wives from their husbands.” (Quoted in Greenberg, 1988, 144) Some persons were noted for their exclusive interests in persons of one gender. For example, Alexander the Great and the founder of Stoicism, Zeno of Citium, were known for their exclusive interest in boys and other men. Such persons, however, are generally portrayed as the exception. Furthermore, the issue of what gender one is attracted to is seen as an issue of taste or preference, rather than as a moral issue. A character in Plutarch's Erotikos (Dialogue on Love) argues that “the noble lover of beauty engages in love wherever he sees excellence and splendid natural endowment without regard for any difference in physiological detail.” (Ibid., 146) Gender just becomes irrelevant “detail” and instead the excellence in character and beauty is what is most important.
Even though the gender that one was erotically attracted to (at any specific time, given the assumption that persons will likely be attracted to persons of both sexes) was not important, other issues were salient, such as whether one exercised moderation.
<snip>
Ancient Rome had many parallels in its understanding of same-sex attraction, and sexual issues more generally, to ancient Greece. This is especially true under the Republic. Yet under the Empire, Roman society slowly became more negative in its views towards sexuality, probably due to social and economic turmoil, even before Christianity became influential.

Note that all emphasis is mine.

The other point made about the Greeks in your link is that sexual orientation involves persons (implied to be of either sex) responding to "beauty in either sex." No categorization of heterosexual or homosexual. Just choice of when and where to response sexually.

So, according to your own link, the idea of a dichotomy is recent, even the idea of orientation didn't exist for quite a while (it was just the choice you happened to make). So the question raised by sol invictus is valid as are his doubts about the assumptions made in this thread, because those assumptions are shown to be a recent construct, not some kind of "truth."

Even though I agree with the idea that a dichotomy isn't the case, with its idea of a straight-line between heterosexuality and homosexuality, I still believe that there are biological/genetic elements involved in where someone's preference would fall. I just see it as more of a circle than a straight line.

Sort of like this (numbers made up)

 

[Cheetah]

Really? You don't think preferring certain foods is important to continued existence? I don't think someone that prefers to eat rocks is going to live very long.

Instead, people like certain tastes in part because of genetics. But it's also pretty clear that there's a non-genetic component too, and in any case, that it would be pretty silly to characterize people by any one-dimensional or binary distribution on the basis of cauliflower versus broccoli preference. The latter was the point.

As for religion, I suspect it's been around for more than long enough to have a significant impact on evolution. Whether it actually did, I don't know.

You sort of missed my point.
Don't equate it with broccoli vs cauliflower, rather with sweet foods vs bitter foods (which often is poisonous). Or religion vs no religion, rather than protestant vs catholic.

Pup put it pretty nicely.

So, would you not admit that there might be a survival advantage to male animals preferring to mate with females and females preferring to mate with males, instead of everyone just having a strong sex drive and going about it willy nilly?

 

[Vorpal]

So, would you not admit that there might be a survival advantage to male animals preferring to mate with females and females preferring to mate with males, instead of everyone just having a strong sex drive and going about it willy nilly?

I don't think it's that simple. For example, the hypersexuality of bonobos and its effect on their social interactions demonstrate that there can be evolutionary advantages to the highlighted approach.

 

[Cheetah]

I don't think it's that simple. For example, the hypersexuality of bonobos and its effect on their social interactions demonstrate that there can be evolutionary advantages to the highlighted approach.

I totally agree.

But Sol is of the opinion that sexual preference has NO genetic component and I think it has. I was just trying to show that sexual preference might have survival value, whichever way it goes and for whatever reasons. I just picked a simplified example to prove a point.

 

[Aridas]

Sorry?

You've stated that...

But it still implies that there's a one-dimensional continuum from "homo" to "hetero", and I doubt even that is true.

To my understanding, the only relevant "ends" to this discussion are a very strong sexual preference for males to the exclusion of females and a very strong sexual preference for females to the exclusion of males, with the continuum in between being where most humans fall. Alternately, you can substitute "same gender" and "opposite gender," but I left it as male and female, as you seem to have an issue with accepting that males and females can be considered opposite genders. Delving into the validity of whether they can be validly referred to as opposite genders, though, I think, would be better done in a different thread, simply to keep things relatively on topic in this one. That said, if you can cite relevant points to the issue that are not, in fact, on this continuum, your doubt might have some basis.

If it's a straw man, you should be able to explain why it's different from sexual preference in some way that's relevant to this discussion. But you evidently cannot - you just keep asserting that it's different.

Funny. What do you think a straw man is, exactly? I'll make my position clear, again, despite your repeated failure to make yours clear.

I agree that the view you stated as what you're arguing against...

I always find such discussions very odd, because they are predicated on what seems to me a fact not at all in evidence - ...that there are two categories, homosexual or heterosexual, and that it make sense to say that people are either one or the other. The obvious exceptions (bisexuals, people that change sexual preference, etc.) are regarded as either singular exceptions, or as people who took a long time to figure out their "true" orientation or are just pretending.

Is quite reasonable to argue against. At no point, in fact, have I supported this view, your repeated and incorrect attempts to compare my position to this argument to the contrary. That you have continued to try to argue against a position that neither I, nor others who have discussed this matter here since you presented your argument, either do or seem to either hold or support, and that you try to say that we do, makes your arguments against this position a straw man.

That said, your arguments, in general, have been poor. That is completely separate from whether your position is right or wrong. Personally, I have no love of bad arguments, though, hence why I'm even still posting on this matter.


Now, on to your broccoli and cauliflower comparison to sexual preference, much as I'm rolling my eyes at you as I do it.

When looked at only from the point of view of two things and which is preferred? There's no actual conceptual difference. Strangely enough, though, I never claimed that there was a difference there. That said, from that point of view, cause is irrelevant. Whether either of the options are liked in the first place is irrelevant. Whether it's different for an individual, either actually or seemingly, at different times is irrelevant. As I recall, you've tried to raise each of these as objections against the point that you're comparing it against. Applying any of these other variables (or others that I haven't named) changes what's actually being discussed significantly. Given that you were the one objecting to a continuum between 1) a strong sexual preference for males with minimal to no preference for females and 2) a strong sexual preference for females with minimal to no preference for males, in the first place, and whether to allow such to be used to classify anything as "homosexual" or "heterosexual..." I do find it mildly amusing that you're trying to disprove the usefulness of such a continuum by positing another, then raising the same arguments as before.

Do you think there's a spectrum between "liking broccoli" (B) and "liking cauliflower" (C), and it's reasonable to characterize people as B or C, with a few odd exceptions on the "continuum" in between?

That's clearly silly, because some people like both, some neither, some like one sometimes and the other sometimes, many people change their opinions with time or how it's prepared or what it's served with or what wine they're drinking, etc. etc.

No, frankly, I'm not going to call it silly if someone finds it useful to delineate between people who will choose to eat broccoli, but not cauliflower, people who will choose to eat cauliflower, but not broccoli, and people who will eat both (much as I roll my eyes at the "with a few odd exceptions" giveaway to the straw man you've been using). This can be useful information in the right situations. As for "liking" and those who won't eat either? That's referring to a different variable, entirely, and just illustrates, again, why your argument fails to actually address what you've stated that you're arguing against. Now, if you want to change/clarify what you're officially arguing against? Fine by me, if you actually do it.

That said, Pup's post, which you seem to have ignored, deals more directly with the relevance of your argument, in context. Me? I'm dealing with the quality and correctness of your arguments and logic, mostly.

Umm, no. That's not how this works. If you think there's something in that document - which is rather long - that contradicts or undermines what I've said, you need to point out what it is. Merely linking to it and saying "read it again" doesn't cut it and won't convince anyone.

Ehh. I admit. I was being lazy. That said, you've given me every reason to believe that you're arguing, with the relevant argument, that there was no concept of individuals that showed a strong preference towards one gender or the other with minimal to no preference for the other gender, which, frankly, is what the more common use of homosexual and heterosexual are, in society, even if bisexuality would be a more proper term in many cases, if one was being strict about it. So, sections of the page like...

Some persons were noted for their exclusive interests in persons of one gender. For example, Alexander the Great and the founder of Stoicism, Zeno of Citium, were known for their exclusive interest in boys and other men.

...

To continue in a submissive role even while one should be an equal citizen was considered troubling, although there certainly were many adult male same-sex relationships that were noted and not strongly stigmatized. While the passive role was thus seen as problematic, to be attracted to men was often taken as a sign of masculinity. Greek gods, such as Zeus, had stories of same-sex exploits attributed to them, as did other key figures in Greek myth and literature, such as Achilles and Hercules. Plato, in the Symposium, argues for an army to be comprised of same-sex lovers. Thebes did form such a regiment, the Sacred Band of Thebes, formed of 500 soldiers. They were renowned in the ancient world for their valor in battle.

Would seem to not support this view. Then, to start to deal with the more direct question about why the concept of strong and preferential attraction to one gender or another wasn't necessarily named? Citing the culture itself, the understandings that it held, and thus, the general lack of impetus or direct reason to do so, works for a start. Continuing on, though, the page does deal with the question of "why was the modern concept of homosexuality recent?." For example...

In the 18th and 19th centuries an overtly theological framework no longer dominated the discourse about same-sex attraction. Instead, secular arguments and interpretations became increasingly common. Probably the most important secular domain for discussions of homosexuality was in medicine, including psychology. This discourse, in turn, linked up with considerations about the state and its need for a growing population, good soldiers, and intact families marked by clearly defined gender roles. Doctors were called in by courts to examine sex crime defendants (Foucault, 1980; Greenberg, 1988). At the same time, the dramatic increase in school attendance rates and the average length of time spent in school, reduced transgenerational contact, and hence also the frequency of transgenerational sex. Same-sex relations between persons of roughly the same age became the norm.

In short, though, the arguments that you seem to be trying to support your presumed points with do not seem to support them as well as you think that they do.

I disagree with your conclusion. I agree with sol invictus' point. And I don't think you've proved sol invictus wrong with your link.

Feel free to think that. The thing, though, is that, at no point, was I disagreeing with the information on the page I cited. Merely how relevant it is, or rather, how useful it is as an argument for any side of the question at hand.

As for his argument against treating homosexuality and heterosexuality as a dichotomy? At no point did I support the notion that they are.

My reading of the point sol invictus made in his first post was that the assumption that heterosexuality and homosexuality were exclusive opposites was wrong.

Ever heard of the "fallacy of the excluded middle?" It seems like he's trying to project that fallacy onto others.

Therefore, the argument about genetic causes of homosexuality is based on a false premise. He went on to reiterate that point in subsequent posts.

While possible, he has yet to provide more than weak evidence that doesn't remotely need to be interpreted the way he wants it to be and bad arguments for his position.

Your link actually agrees with sol invictus' point.

His information, sure. His point? Not necessarily.

See here:Note that the "dichotomy of 'heterosexual' and 'homosexual'" is considered contemporary. I think that this is what sol invictus has been saying. It's not a true dichotomy, that concept is recent and not necessarily true.

I wasn't saying straw man for no reason, even when, technically, I could have cited more direct failings. I stuck with straw man, though, because he was arguing against a position that no one here seems to be holding, despite his assertions to the contrary, and the rest of his logical failings seemed to proceed from attempts to continue that.

 

[Vorpal]

But Sol is of the opinion that sexual preference has NO genetic component and I think it has.

But you just quoted a post of his that contradicts that. Maybe there's less disagreement between your positions than it appears.

 

[Cheetah]

But you just quoted a post of his that contradicts that. Maybe there's less disagreement between your positions than it appears.

Oh, man its complicated, I have a terrible memory, had to go back and reread the thread. I now see I was wrong, Sol was arguing that homosexuality has no genetic component, NOT sexual preference (which he agrees probably has) as I remembered, though the distinction is debatable.

He said:

Would you look for a genetic explanation of which German Christians are Protestant and which are Catholic, and which are somewhere in between but influenced by "cultural, psychological, etc. factors"?

It's like trying to decide whether liking or not liking broccoli is genetic.

Which I thought were bad analogy's:

Sexual preference is central to the continued existence of a species and has to have been greatly influenced by evolution. It absolutely cannot be equated to things like the choice of a preferred religion or a preferred food like broccoli vs cauliflower, those are just arbitrary.

Sol then jumped in with:

Really? You don't think preferring certain foods is important to continued existence? I don't think someone that prefers to eat rocks is going to live very long.

Which I of course agree with, but was not the point I was trying to make. I should have clarified it first time off, which actually was:

Don't equate it with broccoli vs cauliflower, rather with sweet foods vs bitter foods (which often is poisonous). Or religion vs no religion, rather than protestant vs catholic.

So, yeah, there were a couple of misunderstandings and confusions.