Homosexuality not as "genetic" as I've heard?

[mike3]

For this question, then, you're completely off the mark. You may have presented a correct interpretation. Likely, you didn't. Either way, it's exceedingly difficult to present the case that one definitely is the case when there's simply not enough relevant information presented to lead one from what you cited to your interpretation. You would need to present the information that actually connects the two, rather than throwing in variables that aren't addressed at all.



Again, your misunderstanding shows, here, but see above, in short. The simple answer to this is that well-informed interpretations take into account all the relevant information. What you've done is toss out a couple isolated facts and made suggestions that... while it's possible that the suggestions are correct, it would very much be jumping to conclusions to accept them based on the presented, and even more of a leap with even a passing knowledge of the relevant social factors.

What is the misunderstanding here now?

And does this mean that if all you see is a couple of isolated facts from a website, you shouldn't really try to draw any conclusions off it?

FUnsupported premises. That's not saying that they're wrong, it's saying that they're untrustworthy as they stand. Where I directly said "no," it was in response to you asking "Does this mean X?" For it to mean X, a number of other things not currently in evidence or, potentially, are contraindicated by relevant information not presented directly here would need to be true, thus, it does not actually mean X.

That is, that my interpretation introduces (though I did not see it) unsupported premises, right?

FWhat factors are in play that have and haven't been accounted for, with regards to the reporting? How great is the difference? How much of the discrepancy is attributable to social views on homosexuality and expected gender behavior being reflected in the relationships with the parents? For all that's actually been presented, that could account for the entirety of the discrepancy. How consistent are the numbers? Are there a number of homosexuals with a pair of fairly "normally" or "more" loving parents and a number with much more greatly strained relationships with one of them? Gay men with highly religiously conservative fathers would likely tend to have much more problematic relationships with their fathers, as an example, as a reaction, not a cause. Regarding expected gender behavior, as well, a comparison to the relationships with parents to straight men who display differing behavior from expected would be needed to be looked into. Those are just a couple points that aren't addressed at all by the first statement. In short, the first statement reports a correlation. Your statement implies a particular causation, which is actually not supported by the statement.

Going beyond that, so far, it seems that you seem to be using homosexuality and male homosexuality interchangeably, which does immediately beg questions about how applicable your statements are to female homosexuality. Given that your sources seem to solely be focused on male homosexuality, the generalization seems to be ill-advised.



It really doesn't just rephrase it. Again, correlation versus suggested causation.

Ah. Now I think I get it: I said something about it being "due" to something, whereas the original quote only said what the people in the study reported. However it does also say "Some researchers think this may indicate that childhood family experiences are important determinants to homosexuality" -- does this mean that there is some evidence that it might be causative?

FImbalance from what, exactly, for starters? Different from a different group, yes, but imbalance implies something a bit different than what you had quoted actually indicates. Again, of far more relevance is identifying why there is a difference from the claimed average of straight male relationships with their parents, which would be far more pertinent to determining the answers to the questions that you're raising, rather than simply suggesting one particular causation out of multiple possibilities.

Because identifying why would give the correct causation, right?

FSee above.



That depends on the topic. It's a fine starting point for investigation, usually, at worst, though. Usually, it's good for at least a general overview of whatever topic is in question, as well.

Thanks.

 

[Belz...]

It is very hard to be completely supportive of gay people's rights, while at the same time be interested in the biological/sociological phenomenon in a cold, detached way.

No, it's not.

 

[Joey McGee]

Natural homophobes? Evolutionary psychology and antigay attitudes

 

[Aridas]

What is the misunderstanding here now?

You repeatedly claimed that I said that you that you were wrong. I didn't. I said that your interpretation was poorly informed if it is indeed based on what you claim that it is based on, and, thus, untrustworthy, but that your interpretation could potentially be correct.

And does this mean that if all you see is a couple of isolated facts from a website, you shouldn't really try to draw any conclusions off it?

No. There is a difference between reasonable conclusions and jumping to conclusions, though... and with some topics, one has to be more careful than with others. Modern evolutionary theory, for example, has a lot of disinformation circling around about it and lots of creationists that try to present false information and very poorly informed interpretations of what more neutral sources say on the matter. Homosexuality, like evolution, is an issue where lots and lots of false information has been floating around about for a long time and there's quite a few people intent on demonizing it, no matter what the actual facts are and where they lead... with the additional point that more recently, a number of proponents who are intent on doing the opposite, no matter what the actual facts are and where they lead, have been vocal, which makes it all the more imperative to tread lightly and at least verify and check questionable information before drawing much in the way of conclusions. The 1939 study, in particular, may very well have serious issues with how it determined who counted as a homosexual compared to what we consider to count as a homosexual today and, as the bit you read already said, there was a fair bit of social stress occurring. Either way, looking into the actual nature of the social stress and the culture itself before, during, and after the time in question might yield a fair bit of relevant information, as well as comparing such to other cultures going through similar events.

That is, that my interpretation introduces (though I did not see it) unsupported premises, right?

Yes.

Ah. Now I think I get it: I said something about it being "due" to something, whereas the original quote only said what the people in the study reported. However it does also say "Some researchers think this may indicate that childhood family experiences are important determinants to homosexuality" -- does this mean that there is some evidence that it might be causative?

By the quoted? Not necessarily. Certainly, it is a distinct possibility that childhood family experiences affect the rates of the expression of homosexual behavior and that should be investigated, but there are difficulties inherent in just about any investigation of past events that are quite complex and unique, based on fairly biased testimonies that only tend to cover a tiny portion of them.

Because identifying why would give the correct causation, right?

Potentially. Looking into why the numbers are different might simply end up indicating that there are issues with the data collection itself, though, which would mean that the numbers couldn't reasonably be used for either some or all purposes, depending on what the issues actually are.

 

[Vermonter]

The first quote seems to imply that homosexuality may at least in part be due to an unbalanced family environment, where the parents are not equally loving. *snipped for brevity*

Correlation does not imply or prove causation. Environment may be some factor, but not the overriding or dominant factor.

 

[mike3]

You repeatedly claimed that I said that you that you were wrong. I didn't. I said that your interpretation was poorly informed if it is indeed based on what you claim that it is based on, and, thus, untrustworthy, but that your interpretation could potentially be correct.

Well yeah, that's what it's based on, so I guess the basis is flimsy. I guess I tend to interpret such a claim as saying it's "wrong" in some manner, but I guess that's not the right interpretation.

No. There is a difference between reasonable conclusions and jumping to conclusions, though... and with some topics, one has to be more careful than with others. Modern evolutionary theory, for example, has a lot of disinformation circling around about it and lots of creationists that try to present false information and very poorly informed interpretations of what more neutral sources say on the matter. Homosexuality, like evolution, is an issue where lots and lots of false information has been floating around about for a long time and there's quite a few people intent on demonizing it, no matter what the actual facts are and where they lead... with the additional point that more recently, a number of proponents who are intent on doing the opposite, no matter what the actual facts are and where they lead, have been vocal, which makes it all the more imperative to tread lightly and at least verify and check questionable information before drawing much in the way of conclusions. The 1939 study, in particular, may very well have serious issues with how it determined who counted as a homosexual compared to what we consider to count as a homosexual today and, as the bit you read already said, there was a fair bit of social stress occurring. Either way, looking into the actual nature of the social stress and the culture itself before, during, and after the time in question might yield a fair bit of relevant information, as well as comparing such to other cultures going through similar events.

However, what I think I'm really curious about is what is a good method for forming informed opinions about these kind of controversial topics in general. What would such a method be? In the case of evolutionary theory, one could look at a textbook on the subject, for example. But what about a general method -- what do you do when you have all kinds of sources saying all kinds of contradictory things?

Also, I'm curious: What implications, if any, does any of this stuff have with regards to what kind of attitude society should take with regard to homosexuality? In what ways would these various possibilities for its cause or causes, and the data supporting them, inform that?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Also, I'm curious: What implications, if any, does any of this stuff have with regards to what kind of attitude society should take with regard to homosexuality? In what ways would these various possibilities for its cause or causes, and the data supporting them, inform that?

What does it matter what "caused", or "formed", or "influenced", my sexual orientation?

Does it make it seem less squicky to you if I am forced by circumstance, or genetics; or led by social pressures and influences; into an orientation you find distasteful than if I simply realize, and respond to, the same orientation without having to, or trying to, justify it to you?

Society should take the attitude toward homosexuality that it is no one's business at all what happens among consenting adults in the privacy of my demesne.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What does it matter what "caused", or "formed", or "influenced", my sexual orientation?

Does it make it seem less squicky to you if I am forced by circumstance, or genetics; or led by social pressures and influences; into an orientation you find distasteful than if I simply realize, and respond to, the same orientation without having to, or trying to, justify it to you?

Society should take the attitude toward homosexuality that it is no one's business at all what happens among consenting adults in the privacy of my demesne.

First, I'm in total agreement, gays are normal and deserve equal rights.

But one reason it matters that homosexuality is not a choice is because of all the idiots who fear their children must be protected from being turned gay.

 

[Slowvehicle]

First, I'm in total agreement, gays are normal and deserve equal rights.

But one reason it matters that homosexuality is not a choice is because of all the idiots who fear their children must be protected from being turned gay.

...and you really think such a person is amenable to reason?

Look at all the threads here where some meddlesome nellie wants to get all concerned about how someone else is doing sexfun, but refuses to answer the question of when they, personally, "made the choice" of their sexual orientation, or who "recruited" them to their "lifestyle", with all the alacrity of a creationist at a paleontology museum.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...and you really think such a person is amenable to reason? ...

No, but other people listening to their arguments are.

Public sentiment is changing. That's what I care about, not the homophobes who can't assess evidence.

 

[Brian-M]

Homosexuality not as "genetic" as I've heard?

As far as I'm aware, there's zero evidence to support the claim that homosexuality is a genetically determined trait.

The main question is whether or not homosexuality is congenital (something you're born with), not whether or not it's genetic.

Given that brain-scans seem to show that the brains of straight and homosexual people are physically different, it's a pretty good bet that it's something that you're born with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_sexual_orientation#Structural_differences

The first quote seems to imply that homosexuality may at least in part be due to an unbalanced family environment, where the parents are not equally loving.

The second quote seems to imply that homosexuality may at least in part be due to an unbalanced society -- and if it's right that some cultures have "virtually no" homosexuality, that would seem to suggest it is extremely environmental, which seems to go way against what I've heard with regards to it being genetic or biological in origin.

Correlation does not mean causation. For example, this could be due to reporting bias, with homosexual people from more traditional families and societies being more inclined to remain "in the closet".

 

[mike3]

What does it matter what "caused", or "formed", or "influenced", my sexual orientation?

Does it make it seem less squicky to you if I am forced by circumstance, or genetics; or led by social pressures and influences; into an orientation you find distasteful than if I simply realize, and respond to, the same orientation without having to, or trying to, justify it to you?

Society should take the attitude toward homosexuality that it is no one's business at all what happens among consenting adults in the privacy of my demesne.

Grr, I was afraid this was going to happen...



My apologies for any offense. The honest truth, or as honest as I can get myself to be: I actually don't believe that there should be any sort of discrimination. But when I read the Wikipedia article, I leapt to a conclusion that it had the potential to provide some kind of support for at least some arguments of the anti-gay crowd, which was not a conclusion I liked, since as I mentioned I didn't believe in discrimination. So I came to the Randi Forum to get my "reasoning" tested, and Aridas (and others) supplied the challenges that satisfactorily showed it to be less solid than I had thought, thereby helping to "rebury" the anti-gay argument in my mind.

The purpose of the above question was because of some remaining fear that if the conclusions -- which as Aridas said weren't on firm ground, but were still possible -- which I had leapt to, were correct, that it would somehow justify anti-gay discrimination, and I wanted to find out something to show that was not the case. I wanted to confirm for myself that anti-gay discrimination was not justified by any of the stuff I had read. Perhaps I should have made that clearer.

So no, I find nothing "squicky", rather I was not sure what to do with this data that in my mind seemed to present a challenge for me.

And yes, I agree, there shouldn't be any prying by anyone into whatever goes on in the bedroom.

 

[mike3]

As far as I'm aware, there's zero evidence to support the claim that homosexuality is a genetically determined trait.

The main question is whether or not homosexuality is congenital (something you're born with), not whether or not it's genetic.

Given that brain-scans seem to show that the brains of straight and homosexual people are physically different, it's a pretty good bet that it's something that you're born with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_sexual_orientation#Structural_differences



Correlation does not mean causation. For example, this could be due to reporting bias, with homosexual people from more traditional families and societies being more inclined to remain "in the closet".

Thanks for that, too. Gosh, I have to remember that bit about the correlation-vs.-causation thing. I guess I have too much of a tendency to latch on to words like "less love", etc. or something and then tend to draw more conclusions out then I get upset because the warped "conclusions" I pull out I find disagreeable (like that "maybe the anti-gay crowd is slightly right after all..." or whatever) as I know these things aren't right (discrimination is not right, no matter what someone says).

 

[Pup]

But when I read the Wikipedia article, I leapt to a conclusion that it had the potential to provide some kind of support for at least some arguments of the anti-gay crowd, which was not a conclusion I liked, since as I mentioned I didn't believe in discrimination. So I came to the Randi Forum to get my "reasoning" tested, and Aridas (and others) supplied the challenges that satisfactorily showed it to be less solid than I had thought, thereby helping to "rebury" the anti-gay argument in my mind.

The purpose of the above question was because of some remaining fear that if the conclusions -- which as Aridas said weren't on firm ground, but were still possible -- which I had leapt to, were correct, that it would somehow justify anti-gay discrimination, and I wanted to find out something to show that was not the case.

Let's say that tomorrow, positive proof showed up that being gay was a choice, primarily influenced by adults who influenced preteen children. (The chance is almost nil, but let's say for the sake of argument.)

I don't see how even that, by itself, would justify anti-gay discrimination.

Suppose we discovered that having a high-IQ was a choice, primarily influenced by exposure to high-IQ adults in one's pre-teen years. Do you think people would begin using that to justify discrimination against adults with high IQs? On the contrary, they could probably make big bucks as high-paid babysitters.

The hatred has to come first, then the discrimination follows.

 

[mike3]

Let's say that tomorrow, positive proof showed up that being gay was a choice, primarily influenced by adults who influenced preteen children. (The chance is almost nil, but let's say for the sake of argument.)

I don't see how even that, by itself, would justify anti-gay discrimination.

Suppose we discovered that having a high-IQ was a choice, primarily influenced by exposure to high-IQ adults in one's pre-teen years. Do you think people would begin using that to justify discrimination against adults with high IQs? On the contrary, they could probably make big bucks as high-paid babysitters.

The hatred has to come first, then the discrimination follows.

Thanks for the additional points.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Let's say that tomorrow, positive proof showed up that being gay was a choice, primarily influenced by adults who influenced preteen children. (The chance is almost nil, but let's say for the sake of argument.)

I don't see how even that, by itself, would justify anti-gay discrimination.

Suppose we discovered that having a high-IQ was a choice, primarily influenced by exposure to high-IQ adults in one's pre-teen years. Do you think people would begin using that to justify discrimination against adults with high IQs? On the contrary, they could probably make big bucks as high-paid babysitters.

The hatred has to come first, then the discrimination follows.

Beautifully said.

 

[Beerina]

No it doesn't. Some biological behaviour will only manifest in certain environments. That does not mean the behaviours are not biological in origin.

As to the first quote - given the apparent way fathers used to be (in the golden age of course) one would expect the prevalence of homosexuality to be decreasing today. Does the evidence support that?

One study I read 20 years ago suggested an unusually distant relationship from both parents, not just the father, as pop psychology suggests.

In any case, from a legal, libertarian point of view, a rational people never grant the government the power to regulate sexuality to begin with. We now return you to arguing about how many angels dance on the head of a pin.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As far as I'm aware, there's zero evidence to support the claim that homosexuality is a genetically determined trait....

The rest of your comments aside, "zero evidence" is not correct. There may not yet be overwhelming evidence, and there is evidence of in utero causes, but there is also some evidence of genetic involvement if not outright cause.

You have to consider also the political hot potato of identifying a gay gene if it is then used in genetic testing in utero. This hampers the incentive and funding of some genetic research in the area of genetic cause of homosexuality.

An interesting discussion of the state of the current research and the political influence on the scientific research can be found here and is well worth a read:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/genetics/nyreview.html

The paper has a thorough analysis of how research is misinterpreted and conclusions flawed, something research in this field is fife with.

There is also the ludicrous (IMO) resistance among some scientists to accept the role of genetic effect on behavior.

...This should not be interpreted to mean that genes do not affect human behavior; it only demonstrates that genetic influence on behavior is not due to major-gene effects.[18] .... If scientists who have opposed research on heritability would accept that it can have, when it is carried out in this spirit, an important place in the study of behavior, that would add much-needed weight to calls to expand, and improve, research on human sexuality.

It's more productive to consider:

Perhaps we are asking the wrong question when we set out to find whether there is a gene for sexual orientation. We know that genes are responsible for the development of our lungs, larynx, mouth, and the speech areas of our brain. And we understand that this complexity cannot be collapsed into the notion of a gene for "talking." Similarly, what possible basis can there be for concluding that there is a single gene for sexuality, even though we accept that there are genes that direct the development of our penises, vaginas, and brains? This analogy is not to deny the importance of genes, but merely to recast their role in a different conceptual setting, one devoid of dualist prejudice.

The search for a single dominant gene--the "O-GOD" (one gene, one disorder) hypothesis--that would influence a behavioral variant is likely to be fruitless. Many different genes, together with many different environmental factors, will interact in unpredictable ways to guide behavioral preferences.

Let's say that tomorrow, positive proof showed up that being gay was a choice, primarily influenced by adults who influenced preteen children. (The chance is almost nil, but let's say for the sake of argument.)

I don't see how even that, by itself, would justify anti-gay discrimination.....

Of course it doesn't. Nothing does. But the reality is people act on false beliefs and regardless of what is right, there is also what is real. The same paper linked above I found this humorous passage (do look at the context before assuming the broader implications, this is followed by debate, not acceptance):

In the thirteen persuasive essays that make up The Sexual Brain, LeVay takes account of the current bio-behavioral controversy over the science of sex. From the union of wiry sperm and bloated ovum to the child-rearing practices of mammals and humans, for which mothers are largely responsible, he writes (metaphorically), the "male is little more than a parasite who takes advantage of [the female's] dedication to reproduction." He goes on to draw from a wide range of sources to support his contentious assertion that "there are separate centers within the hypothalamus for the generation of male-typical and female-typical sexual behavior and feelings." He argues that a connection--the details of which remain mysterious--between brain and behavior exists through hormones such as testosterone.

People blame mothers, sometimes fathers, parenting, pedophiles, temptation, all manner of things for something that should be accepted rather than needing anything to 'blame'. It's best to investigate the causes, the processes, if only to stop the nonsensical blaming.

 

[Arcade22]

One type of homosexual behavior that has been associated with environmental factors is when a society has strict prohibitions against things such as premarital sex, gender mixing (i.e. when two or more people of different genders that aren't closely related have a non-sexual relationship together), masturbation and son. An example would be parts of Afghanistan, especially amongst pashtuns, and some other Islamic societies).

Since males (especially young adults) in such societies often lack a sensible outlet for their sexual urges they sometimes resort to using other males, and especially young males that don't look manly and could pass as girls (i.e. they haven't gone through puberty) as substitutes for women and an outlet for their sexual frustration.

 

[Pup]

One type of homosexual behavior that has been associated with environmental factors is when a society has strict prohibitions against things such as premarital sex, gender mixing (i.e. when two or more people of different genders that aren't closely related have a non-sexual relationship together), masturbation and son. An example would be parts of Afghanistan, especially amongst pashtuns, and some other Islamic societies).

Since males (especially young adults) in such societies often lack a sensible outlet for their sexual urges they sometimes resort to using other males, and especially young males that don't look manly and could pass as girls (i.e. they haven't gone through puberty) as substitutes for women and an outlet for their sexual frustration.

From what little info I could find about that 1939 Tanalese study, it sounds something like that:

http://books.google.com/books?id=urh7krklii0C&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81

These phenomena were accompanied by another, less easy to explain: a spectacular increase in male homosexuality. The incidence rose to five times what it had been before the crisis... But to this we have to add the particular Tanalese cultural pattern: Both before and after the crisis, homosexuals were invariably recruited from among the younger sons. In short, the culturally valued pattern of submissiveness found new expression as a means of insulating a portion of the male population from the increase in situations of threat...

In particular, the taboo against overt aggression and the value placed upon submissiveness continued to exert a force in Tanalese social life, even though they were currently expressed in pathological social institutions such as magic and widespread homosexuality... This is what Kardiner proposed to call the Social Distress Syndrome.

I'm not sure how to interpret that, without the author's apparent assumption that no homosexuals were born and all were recruited. How young were the "younger sons"? Were they younger than the age that sexual interest would tend to begin anyway? Is the implication that the five-fold increase was coming from activity like Arcade22 mentioned, whereas before and after the social crisis, homosexual interest had shown up normally at the start of puberty just like heterosexual interest?