Homosexuality

[Christian]

I know this is sensitive topic, but I have some questions about the subject. This is the first.

What is the body of scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic?


I have heard that most evidence is anecdotal. Is this correct?


If in fact, there is a body of scientific evidence, then I need to look at it before continuing with the discussion I want to have.

 

[swstephe]

try this link:

There are a lot of links out there. I found this one: http://www.narth.com/docs/bornway.html to have a lot of information. Apparently a booklet from P-FLAG, (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays)

"To date, no researcher has claimed that genes can determine sexual orientation. At best, researchers believe that there may be a genetic component. No human behavior, let alone sexual behavior, has been connected to genetic markers to date...sexuality, like every other behavior, is undoubtedly influenced by both biological and societal factors."

 

[QuarkChild]

One possible way of determining whether homosexuality is genetic (and to what extent) is the use of identical twin studies.

In a study of 110 homosexual men who had twins:

52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual

Bailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among brothers

This is from http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html

I recommend reading the original link because it explains the implications and also points out some of the shortfalls of the methodology.

Anyway, it is my understanding that typically, twin studies suggest a fairly significant genetic contribution to homosexuality.

 

[justsaygnosis]

According to woo-woo theosophy homosexuality occurs when a 'male' entity inhabits a female body or vice versa and they end up seeking their compliment at a psychic core level rather than a biological one.
The jury of empirical science is still in deliberation on this one as to its' EXACT cause.
Given the body of investigation that's been done, if they can't come to a definite conclusion I'm clueless too.
There are no gays in my nuclear family however I have gay first cousins on both my maternal side and paternal side. It's not what everyone wanted but life has it's own designs.

 

[The Mad Linguist]

In addition to what QuarkChild said:

Has anyone ever looked at the uncle-nephew / aunt-niece relationship? If homosexuality were to be inherited across generations, this is how one might expect it to show up (e.g. if a gay man/woman has a greater chance of having a gay nephew/niece than a straight man/woman).

I've never heard of any studies being done on this, but it would be an obvious place to start.

 

[Q-Source]

I might be biased regarding this issue but:

1. why a high percentage of abused males by males -during their childhood- end up as homosexuals?

2. why homosexuals have a preference to work in certain activities and develope certain skills more than others?

I think homosexuality is mainly linked to genetic origins but there are also a sociocultural elements that influence its "development". This means that we could make two groups of people, in one side, those who are genetically determined to be homosexuals and in the other side, those who choose homosexuality as a sexual preference or are conditioned by society to become one.

Of course, this is highly speculative and has no scientific grounds, just my opinion.

Q-S

 

[Yahzi]

IWhat is the body of scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic?

If you are asking, have we found the gene that makes you gay, the answer is no. The human genome is not mapped to that precision yet.

On the other hand, we haven't found the gene that makes you left-handed, and yet no-one doubts for a second that being left-handed is genetic. If what you are looking for is the kind of evidence that convinced people that that left-handeness is genetic, well, we've got that by the ton.

First and foremost is that people who are left-handed (or homosexual) report expierences that show that they were left-handed (or homosexual) long before they were capable of any kind of choice. Like age 4.

Second, there is a huge social pressure on people to not be left-handed (well, there was: people of my generation were still occasionally beaten in school for using their left hands). Yet people continued to exhibit left-handeness despite all cultural conditioning. The same is true of homosexuality. If homosexuality were a cultural choice, then you wouldn't expect it to be expressed in every single culture the earth has ever seen. This universal expression, despite almost universal condemnation, indicates that there is something universal about homosexuality. Just like left-handedness.

The evidence we have for the genetic basis of homosexuality is just as strong as the evidence we have for the genetic basis of left-handedness. One has to ask why one of those propositions is accepted without hesitation and the other one is violently resisted. One suspects that the reason for that difference has nothing to do with the evidence, and everything to do with political and cultural issues.

Also, as Q-Source said, it is almost certainly the case that some lucky percentage of humanity is bisexual. For them, sexual attraction comes without gender restraints, and so, for those few, it really is a choice, just like dating red-heads or blondes is a choice for the rest of us. But this has no more relevance to the argument than the fact that some people are ambidextrous has to the argument about left-handedness.

 

[swstephe]

Left-handedness and homosexuality is very different. One is a physical attribute that one can not choose not to act upon. The other is more of a mental preference which one can choose not to act upon, (there was a lot about pedophilia and castration -- maybe I'll get into that later).

I had two very close friends in high school. They were faternal twins. One was a lesbian the other was not. One was left handed, the other right handed. One had blue eyes, the other brown. For some reason, people would treat them as individuals until they learned they were twins, then they would actually convince themselves they looked identical, (which they definitely did not). The lesbian twin became a bible-thumping evangelical christian, and eventually married a minister. Anyway, I found that even though her preferences didn't leave room for the opposite sex, it was definitely expressed as a set of attributes, not toward the opposite sex, (or even sex), specifically.

I think there is a lot of confusion being generated over the "missing link" between homosexuality and genetics. What is the evolutionary advantage of being homosexual? Is "homosexuality" a discrete atomic attribute, or are there a lot of different competing attributes whose sum ads up to what we call homosexuality. In many cultures and over the course of history, same-sex contact and affections operate by different rules. Westerners get caught by surprise in many Asian cultures to see two men or women holding hands or with their arms around each other. Perhaps it is a repressive culture that hilights otherwise healthy heterosexual behavior? Perhaps it is due to opposition to the gender-biased roles that a culture places on its members?

But on the other hand, why is it important to place emphasis on a genetic factor rather than a simple choice? If, tomorrow, they could locate the gene and tell if someone is homosexual or not by comparing the correct allele, does that mean that everyone has to start acting according to what gene we have? What if Falwell tested positive? Don't we still have the right to make rational decisions and invoke cultural and social pressures? If we don't then what if someone who was living a gay lifestyle was told they didn't carry the gene, so they have to stop doing it?

 

[ImpyTimpy]

Left-handedness and homosexuality is very different. One is a physical attribute that one can not choose not to act upon. The other is more of a mental preference which one can choose not to act upon, (there was a lot about pedophilia and castration -- maybe I'll get into that later).

Wooooow, slow down there kiddo... There isn't much difference since both actions can not be chosen by the person, rather are set in place. In fact, homosexuality is not mental, it is physical. Homosexuals aren't "mentally" attracted to same sex, they're physically attracted.

I had two very close friends in high school. They were faternal twins. One was a lesbian the other was not. One was left handed, the other right handed. One had blue eyes, the other brown. For some reason, people would treat them as individuals until they learned they were twins, then they would actually convince themselves they looked identical, (which they definitely did not). The lesbian twin became a bible-thumping evangelical christian, and eventually married a minister. Anyway, I found that even though her preferences didn't leave room for the opposite sex, it was definitely expressed as a set of attributes, not toward the opposite sex, (or even sex), specifically.

Are you sure she was a lesbian? You're presenting one case of your observation as evidence. That's pointless. I know a few gay people who wanted to be straight because of social pressure but simply could not be! So much for choices.

I'm left handed by the way - not by choice but because that's the way I am.

I think there is a lot of confusion being generated over the "missing link" between homosexuality and genetics. What is the evolutionary advantage of being homosexual? Is "homosexuality" a discrete atomic attribute, or are there a lot of different competing attributes whose sum ads up to what we call homosexuality. In many cultures and over the course of history, same-sex contact and affections operate by different rules. Westerners get caught by surprise in many Asian cultures to see two men or women holding hands or with their arms around each other. Perhaps it is a repressive culture that hilights otherwise healthy heterosexual behavior? Perhaps it is due to opposition to the gender-biased roles that a culture places on its members?

Uhh what? Are you trying to say homosexuality is a by-product of repressive society or gender-biased roles or something? Or the opposite?

But on the other hand, why is it important to place emphasis on a genetic factor rather than a simple choice? If, tomorrow, they could locate the gene and tell if someone is homosexual or not by comparing the correct allele, does that mean that everyone has to start acting according to what gene we have? What if Falwell tested positive? Don't we still have the right to make rational decisions and invoke cultural and social pressures? If we don't then what if someone who was living a gay lifestyle was told they didn't carry the gene, so they have to stop doing it?

I don't understand what you're saying here? Are you trying to tell me that you could openly choose to find say a member of the same sex attractive sexually if you're straight? I know I can't. Same for homosexuals - it's not a choice - they can't control who they find sexually appealing. That's what people who promote "it's a choice" argument don't understand - it's not a choice anymore then being left or right handed.

 

[swstephe]

I'm saying that homosexuality is not a single defineable characteristic. You can't physically test someone for homosexuality. If I show you a picture of a woman's breast and you find it attractive, is that a physical process? What if the breast was actually of a man who had gender re-assignment surgery? Was gender involved? You must have hundreds of such signals ... thighs, faces, eyes, lips, hips, beards, muscles ... those are signals that you are genetically determined to respond to with excitement, even if I'm fooling you with a painting.

However, these signals are inputs to our mental processor. We combine it with experience and culture to generate a desire in our minds. So, I'm saying the processes are genetic, but the ultimate decision is mental.

Yes, my friend was definitely a lesbian. I had met her lovers, with whom she was sexually active, and we often discussed what aspects we were attracted to and what traits were objectional.

There is nothing physically preventing someone from engaging in sexual acts with another person. I knew some young men who sold themselves for money, but were in no way attracted to their clients, nor considered themselves homosexual. It was simply a sign of a sad culture. They were, over time, and due to some overbearing desires, able to adjust what they were willing to do.

Besides, by saying that there is no choice involved at all, then you could argue that a man who has an affair with another woman had no choice because they were genetically determined to be attracted to young women and werent' attracted to their wives anymore. It could be just as difficult for a man to stay in a committed relationship as it is for someone to choose which gender to prefer. In fact it may be harder to remain attracted to exactly one individual who keeps changing appearance as they age.

I'm not one of those "it's a choice" people who use that to say it is immoral, (I asked in another thread if a hermophrodite could ever find love if it were), just that you can't say that it is one attribute which we have no control over.

 

[ImpyTimpy]

I'm saying that homosexuality is not a single defineable characteristic. You can't physically test someone for homosexuality. If I show you a picture of a woman's breast and you find it attractive, is that a physical process? What if the breast was actually of a man who had gender re-assignment surgery? Was gender involved? You must have hundreds of such signals ... thighs, faces, eyes, lips, hips, beards, muscles ... those are signals that you are genetically determined to respond to with excitement, even if I'm fooling you with a painting.

Yes, the sexual response can be measured. It doesn't matter whether the breast is a part of painting or not. A straight male will respond to the picture of a breast positively while a gay man will not. There was a study on that done a while back with results discussed here. Anyone know the thread for it?

However, these signals are inputs to our mental processor. We combine it with experience and culture to generate a desire in our minds. So, I'm saying the processes are genetic, but the ultimate decision is mental.

Woow, circulum in demonstrandum. "It's mental because it's mental". The ultimate decision is not mental. A straight male can not control his "arousal" if faced with a gorgeous woman. A gay male can not control his "arousal" if faced with a gorgeous man. Nothing to do with mental decisions. Just the way you're made.

Yes, my friend was definitely a lesbian. I had met her lovers, with whom she was sexually active, and we often discussed what aspects we were attracted to and what traits were objectional.

You don't know that unless you can read minds.

There is nothing physically preventing someone from engaging in sexual acts with another person. I knew some young men who sold themselves for money, but were in no way attracted to their clients, nor considered themselves homosexual. It was simply a sign of a sad culture. They were, over time, and due to some overbearing desires, able to adjust what they were willing to do.

This has no bearing on whether being gay is a choice or not. If a straight man decides to have sex with other males, there is nothing stopping him. The only thing is he won't enjoy it. If a gay male decides to have sex with women, he won't enjoy it. He can do it but he'll never be happy, just like a straight man.

Besides, by saying that there is no choice involved at all, then you could argue that a man who has an affair with another woman had no choice because they were genetically determined to be attracted to young women and werent' attracted to their wives anymore. It could be just as difficult for a man to stay in a committed relationship as it is for someone to choose which gender to prefer. In fact it may be harder to remain attracted to exactly one individual who keeps changing appearance as they age.

Woow, don't leap so far here. First of all, you're talking about choice to act upon the attraction. In that way, you're creating a subtle red herring. We're discussing whether or not a person has a choice in the attraction itself, not whether they choose to act upon it.

I'm not one of those "it's a choice" people who use that to say it is immoral, (I asked in another thread if a hermophrodite could ever find love if it were), just that you can't say that it is one attribute which we have no control over.

Then I ask again, if you're straight, can you choose to find same sex attractive? You can't. That's all there is to it.

 

[Q-Source]

Excellent post Yahzi, your analogies are always very accurate.

 

[Upchurch]

I'm with Yahzi and Impy on this one, but I wanted to address this issue.

Left-handedness and homosexuality is very different. One is a physical attribute that one can not choose not to act upon. The other is more of a mental preference which one can choose not to act upon, (there was a lot about pedophilia and castration -- maybe I'll get into that later).

I'm left handed and so was my paternal grandfather. When my grandfather grew up, he was forced to do most things right handed (except for sports, which he did left handed and excelled at). I, on the other hand, was allowed to learn to do things left handed.

swstephe's statement above makes it sound like I cannot choose to do things right handed, which my grandfather did (through social pressure) and I can do, if I so choose. Granted, my right handed handwriting sucks and I'm not comfortable doing it, but I can choose to act as if I'm right handed.

So, too, can a gay man act as if he is straight, but, I'm told, he feels the same feeling of not being comfortable about it. Although I'm sure it is to a much higher degree than I feel when I'm using the wrong (that is, right) hand.

Is there a genetic component to being left handed? Obviously there was in my case through my grandfather. Is there a environmental component to being left handed? Obviously there was based on the differences in my grandfather's and my experiences.

There is every indication that this is the case with homosexuality. I think the statistics are hampered by the fact that the subject of homosexuality was, and still somewhat is, taboo and so there may not be a good history of accurate reports. As our society becomes more open to the possibility of homosexuality, I would venture to guess that we will see similar gentic/social mechanisms involved in both left handedness and homosexuality.

 

[swstephe]

genetic preferences: recent study

I thought this article is interesting, (hasn't been published in Psychological Science yet, as far as I can tell, so I don't have the entire results): http://www.canpress.ca/english/online/full/HealthSynd/030619/6061908AU.html

Bailey researched men and women of different gender preferences to determine sexual arousal. What they found is that women tended to be capable of arousal by either gender or sexual orientation situation, while men were not. The immediate assumption is, "were the women all bisexual?" ... but they concluded that it is a more complicated phenomenon than on the surface.

As I've been saying, I think it is the "signals" that are important at the genetic level. I think this study makes sense, if true, that gender bias is primarily determined by gender of the individual. The signals that exhibit gender bias would lie on the 23rd chromosome, (X/Y). That women can exhibit a response to both signals is one of the possible arrangements.

 

[swstephe]

determinism and "free will"

A lot of this gets into free will vs. determinism again. But there is a problem in arguing about that because there are two definitions of "free will", one is "incompatibilism", (that free will /choice/ and determinism /genetics are incompatible and mutually exclusive), and "compatibilism", (that free will and determinism are compatible but merely indicate that a choice is free as long as the action is arrived at using reason and that there is a potential to chose otherwise -- Hobbes and Humes).

Saying homosexuality is purely genetic, with no choice, is to imply determinism and incompatibilism. I find that difficult to show in any other aspect of a human's life. I am never compelled to do anything for which I have options. I can always override natural desires, even if I don't like it, (like fasting or celibacy), for some higher purpose, through reason. Doing things aren't considered unnatural.

I am saying that homosexuality has a strong genetic factor, but it is a very complicated one, and not the ultimate deciding factor. If it was, then a heterosexual man could be perfectly happy in a sexual relationship with another man as long as he looked convincingly like a female in every way, (the crying game?). In fact, a heterosexual man would have no choice but be attracted to a convincing transsexual, would he. The fact that he is feels repelled at the mere knowledge that the transsexual is actual a man pretending to be a woman is mostly a mental process.

 

[Upchurch]

Re: determinism and "free will"

I am saying that homosexuality has a strong genetic factor, but it is a very complicated one, and not the ultimate deciding factor.

Ultimately, I think this is what everyone who claims that homosexuality is genetic is saying. It may not be the ultimate deciding factor but neither is the social/enviromental factor. I believe it is those two factors together that makes the ultimate deciding factor, analogously to being left handed. And like being left handed, one factor may play more of a part than the other on an individual basis.

 

[Dancing David]

Wow, a generaly intelligent discussion to think about.

Here is some more, the genetics thing is much more complex than you could think, there are different ways that biology could effect imprinting or chemical attraction.

Say that there is this phase in our life where we imprint on the gender that we will be most attracted to as adults, lets say it occurs three days and three months and three hours after we are born. Whoever you imprint on in that hou is the one you will want as a mate. Pretyy random which sex it could be, nut there could be other predispositions as well. There is some evidence that our immune systems may be involved in our selection of mates, so say I am attracted to girls but my brother is attracted to men, because of an immune system thing.

Then there is the possibility of the emotional sfaety thing, say my younger brother forund me to be the nurturing individual in his life and so he now seeks out men.

 

[Upchurch]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that those who question the genetic origins of homosexuality are really searching to answer the question "Is homosexuality natural?"

That's a tough question, but ultimately, does it matter? So little of our modern world could be considered "natural" in the first place. Driving around in cars isn't natural. Living in skyscrapers isn't natural. Reading books isn't natural. Surfing the web isn't natural. However, all of us have done at least one of these things and most of us do many of them on a regular basis.

Personally, I think homosexuality is a natural, if somewhat inexplicable, part of life for some people. Or maybe for all of us, I don't know. Regardless, natural or not, it does exist, it doesn't hurt anyone, and I don't really see how it hurts society, frankly.

So, ultimately, what does it matter if it's genetic or their own personal choice? Homosexuals are what they are or what they've decided to be. Who are any of us to tell them it's wrong or unnatural?

 

[Yahzi]

Re: determinism and "free will"

Saying homosexuality is purely genetic, with no choice, is to imply determinism and incompatibilism.

Saying that being born blind is purely genetic, with no choice, is to imply determinism. If the person would only choose to see

Some things are determined. Sorry, dude, but that's the way it is.

Nobody has ever thought you could choose what you were sexually attracted to. Nobody has ever suggested that men should reset their preferences so that they find fat women wildly attractive. If we could control our sexual preferences, then why do we all lust after supermodels, instead of redirecting our preferences to other types that are not as competitively pursued?

The only time anybody ever suggests that sexual attraction is psychological is when they are talking about homosexuals. The rest of the time, it is taken for granted as one of those things you can't really do anything about.

I agree quite strongly with Impy: when you say being gay is a choice, you're making a statement about yourself. "Cause it sure as heck ain't a choice for me. Ask yourself: would you rather sleep with Janet Reno or Johnny Depp? Viola: proof that sexual attraction is neither chosen nor rational.

 

[Yahzi]

So, ultimately, what does it matter if it's genetic or their own personal choice?

Because, if it is genetic, we have a club to beat the Fundies with.

See, the fundies already slipped up: they decided to stop drowning babies that were born with some kind of deformity. Once they did this, they tacitly acknowledged that people (and God) cannot be held responsible for genetic defects. It's quite rare these days to find a fundy who still sticks to the "deformities are god's way of punishing a sinner!"

So if we can show that homosexuality is genetic, it takes the wind right out of the fundie's sails.

Why aren't we arguing for people's right to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone? Because we already lost that argument: we've given up on human rights and liberty, and this point were just arguing for recognition of reality. If they were gonna be convinced by the "get government out of our bedrooms" argument, the gay issue would have been resolved 20 years ago. But fascism is not so easily swayed.