Is homosexuality genetic?

I don't know much about paraphilias, but certain aspects of sexuality are dependent a lot on environment (just the specifics, not broad brushstrokes). I don't know if that applies to your examples, but it's clear that sexuality is multifactorial and a person should be able to be attracted to people or things for reasons other than what is inborn.

And it would be reasonable to assume that the same applies to homosexuality, right? Wasn't homosexuality grouped together with 'paraphilias' before? In what way is it reasonable to consider homosexuality anything but another paraphilia, beyond mere ideological and social ones?

In any case, i find 'homosexuality' to be inherently a cultural phenomenon. Does calling yourself 'heterosexual' yet clearly being able to find a feminine crossdresser or transsexual, both male, mean that you are homosexual or bisexual rather than heterosexual? Situations like this just makes the concept of 'homosexuality' dubious IMO. It just seems a personal title and category people put upon themselves and others, for social reasons.
 
I don't think 1+1=2 needs support

IF you were indeed claiming that 1+1=2, well, that was actually mathematically supported already, so I guess you wouldn't need to provide any extra support. Just about any other claim, though, yes it does.

Just because it looks like common sense to you, doesn't make it true. Some of the biggest stupidities in recorded history looked like common sense to someone. And, really, even on this board we have no shortage of ignorant opinions that someone thinks are like "1+1=2", but actually are awfully false. That's why you do need to support claims.

although it would be good to see it still, I agree but feel my hands are tied..

I'm not sure exactly what is tying your hands there. Did you sign a contract to only post BS but never support it, and the penalties would bankrupt you? Or what?

But at any rate, if you can't support a claim, then it's pretty much failed to have any merit right there. Being supportable is not just something which would be nice to maybe have, but a rather vital thing if a claim is to be taken seriously.

such very big fish to fry. The pathetic frailty of the "genetic determinant" hypothesis overwhelmingly directs to an environmental determinant, through a process of elimination.

How did the narcissistic opera singer warm up? "mememememeememememe!"

Considering that you have failed to support any real frailty there, I don't think you can base any elimination or anything else on it. You can't just call something pathetic and then act as if that settled that.

Plus, "environment" is a rather broad domain. Even if you were to determine that it's not genetic, then other factors to check would also include epigenetics, chemical influences, etc. You can't just narrow it down to gender relations opinions, just because it didn't fall in the other category. It's like saying that Obama is in Japan because he's not in Kenya.

Elimination just doesn't work that way. If you want to narrow it down by elimination, then you need to eliminate ALL the other options. You can't eliminate one option, and pretend that that tells you which of the dozen options left is the right one. (Never mind that even that one option is not really eliminated at the stage where you just badmouth it.)
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Pup
:confused: You're the one who originally introduced it as evidence for your viewpoint, so you apparently thought it was good enough to quote a few posts ago. I'm just asking you to explain why you thought it was evidence.
I guess I quoted it in order to illustrate the bias of wikipedia.


For those who don't want to scroll back to read the original post, here it is, post 41:

I remember reading a study showing that there is at most a 50% concordance for monozygotic twins and homosexuality. Given their sensory and cognitive architecture (ie: the way they process, interpret and store information) as well as many aspects of their environment would usually be pretty well identicle I take that to mean that homosexuality is resoundingly not genetic.

Paraphrased quote from president Ahmadinejad "We just don't have homosexuality in Iran".

I bet there's some homosexuality in Iran, but nowhere near as much as in the feminist, liberal, gay identity cherishing, monogamous West.

I see nothing there to indicate you thought the 50% was inaccurate or an example of Wikipedia's bias.
 
Well, I don't think that SF or Brighton are necessarily representative of homosexuality as a percentage of populace in North America or Europe - those are known 'destinations'. (I used to live in Vancouver - you could say something similar about that city as well.)

My point is that homosexuality between Muslims (and Muslims/non-Muslims) in Islamic countries DOES exist. Certainly in Afghanistan (and in UAE/Dubai) there is a vibrant community, with sufficient numbers of participants to suggest that its not just an anomaly. If for example, one expects 5% of the population in 'The West' to be gay, I wouldn't expect the number in Afghanistan to be hugely different - just a lot more difficult to count.

There is an old Arab saying. Have sex with a woman for children,with a goat for relief and a boy for pleasure.
 
And it would be reasonable to assume that the same applies to homosexuality, right? Wasn't homosexuality grouped together with 'paraphilias' before? In what way is it reasonable to consider homosexuality anything but another paraphilia, beyond mere ideological and social ones?
Largely because homosexuality is not maladaptive, there's no obvious impairment in social functioning, gay people are often quite happy with themselves. In other words, there are no signs of psychopathology.

Some gay people are disturbed by their attraction and wish to change it, but almost always these are tied to societal, family, or religious disapproval. Since there's no "cure" for being gay, and reparative therapy is quack medicine of a profoundly damaging sort, the best course of treatment is to help these people accept themselves and rid themselves of self-hatred.

Since the DSM is intended to list psychopathologies, instead of all variations of human function, there's no reason to pathologize homosexuality. It is, at best, a descriptive of a particular form of sexual behavior.

In any case, i find 'homosexuality' to be inherently a cultural phenomenon.
Homosexuality has been present across all cultures and societies for 1000s of years. The only variations because cultures are differences in acceptance or stigmatization.

Does calling yourself 'heterosexual' yet clearly being able to find a feminine crossdresser or transsexual, both male, mean that you are homosexual or bisexual rather than heterosexual?
Feminine gay men, even those who crossdress, generally have a male gender-identity, relationships with these sorts of men are homosexual.

Transwomen who date straight guys are in a heterosexual relationship. There are plenty of people who are already in these sorts of relationships, even when they know they're partner is tg, who are exclusively attracted to women.
 
Last edited:
Largely because homosexuality is not maladaptive, there's no obvious impairment in social functioning, gay people are often quite happy with themselves. In other words, there are no signs of psychopathology.

Some gay people are disturbed by their attraction and wish to change it, but almost always these are tied to societal, family, or religious disapproval. Since there's no "cure" for being gay, and reparative therapy is quack medicine of a profoundly damaging sort, the best course of treatment is to help these people accept themselves and rid themselves of self-hatred.

Since the DSM is intended to list psychopathologies, instead of all variations of human function, there's no reason to pathologize homosexuality. It is, at best, a descriptive of a particular form of sexual behavior.

Seems reasonable enough.

Homosexuality has been present across all cultures and societies for 1000s of years. The only variations because cultures are differences in acceptance or stigmatization.

Yes, 'homosexuality' as in same-sex sexual behavior been recorded in most societies where it was something worthwhile to record and remember. However, the self identification as a 'homosexual' and basing sexuality where the sex between the participants is the most important part seems to be a relatively new phenomenon. Compare, for example, the sexuality in Ancient Rome and Greece.

Feminine gay men, even those who crossdress, generally have a male gender-identity, relationships with these sorts of men are homosexual.

I never said anything about relationships, and whatever someone identifies their gender as is unimportant because i was talking about sexual attraction. Again: does being sexually attracted to someone who is male, yet is feminine enough so you reasonably describe them as a girl with a penis, mean that you are homosexual? Despite the fact that the same person would be repulsed by the thought of having sex with the stereotypical 'bear' or a 'normal' man?

Transwomen who date straight guys are in a heterosexual relationship. There are plenty of people who are already in these sorts of relationships, even when they know they're partner is tg, who are exclusively attracted to women.

Perhaps i should have specified that this TS was pre-op. Again, is the biological sex of the individual the only relevant characteristic in sexual attraction? If not (and remember that it isn't) then how can you reasonably assume that 'homosexuality' is based inherently upon genetics?
 
I never said anything about relationships, and whatever someone identifies their gender as is unimportant because i was talking about sexual attraction. Again: does being sexually attracted to someone who is male, yet is feminine enough so you reasonably describe them as a girl with a penis, mean that you are homosexual? Despite the fact that the same person would be repulsed by the thought of having sex with the stereotypical 'bear' or a 'normal' man?
I would say no, a man who is sexually attracted to a pre-op transwomen does not make him a homosexual. Straight men find t-girls attractive for the same reasons they g-girls attractive. Here's a few youtubes videos of tg-women, some are pre-op, do you think these women get more attention from straight men or gay men?

Perhaps i should have specified that this TS was pre-op. Again, is the biological sex of the individual the only relevant characteristic in sexual attraction? If not (and remember that it isn't) then how can you reasonably assume that 'homosexuality' is based inherently upon genetics?
I'm not sure what you're asking here. Obviously no, biological sex is not the only characteristic in whether a person finds someone else sexually attractive -- what does that have to do with homosexuality being genetic?
 
Last edited:
Homosexuality has been present across all cultures and societies for 1000s of years. The only variations because cultures are differences in acceptance or stigmatization.

As said before, there is no such thing as homosexuality or heterosexuality. All humans from birth are bisexual. And either have natural or learned preferences in the genders they eventually attract themselves to.
 
As said before, there is no such thing as homosexuality or heterosexuality. All humans from birth are bisexual. And either have natural or learned preferences in the genders they eventually attract themselves to.
But isn't that a kind of sorites fallacy (if you can't figure out which grain of sand defines a pile, there's no such thing as a pile)? If the natural and learned preferences lead you to attach yourself to the same sex, why wouldn't you call that homosexuality? It seems like a functionally useful definition. Of course you could argue that it's all just sexuality, and everyone should relax and get over it, but the same argument that might serve for such liberal purposes seems equally useful for those who would prefer to trivialize the emotional lives of homosexuals and deny them their expression on the grounds that they do not constitute a definable class at all.
 
But isn't that a kind of sorites fallacy (if you can't figure out which grain of sand defines a pile, there's no such thing as a pile)? If the natural and learned preferences lead you to attach yourself to the same sex, why wouldn't you call that homosexuality? It seems like a functionally useful definition. Of course you could argue that it's all just sexuality, and everyone should relax and get over it, but the same argument that might serve for such liberal purposes seems equally useful for those who would prefer to trivialize the emotional lives of homosexuals and deny them their expression on the grounds that they do not constitute a definable class at all.

Homosexuality and Heterosexuality describe preferences. And by the modern context of suffering it could be argued that homosexuals do suffer to a degree. But in cultures where sexuality or gender is much less hetero normative, sexuality is a very dynamic thing. And often time’s people who ascribe themselves as primarily homosexual in such cultures often do have lapses in sexuality or brief periods in which they do have sex with the opposite gender. And vice versa often applies to heterosexuals. IN fact, if humans were left to their natural devices instead of the social constructs "heterosexual, homosexual" then most humans would naturally choose to be bisexual. But this does not describe preferences; it describes innate instinctual proclivities which describe the human species by default of being mammals and primates. Preferences on the other hand are learned through experience or by natural attraction.

Unfortunately in the west and near east, sexuality is one of those things which is polarized and must be lifelong. If a person sways their mind about their sexuality once then it is seen as a negative and indecisive thing. Unfortunately, sexuality doesn't work that way and to say that sexuality cannot change throughout life is simply not true. Some people have an inherent tendency to be attracted to the same or opposite gender. But given the correct circumstances (whether it be emotional, mental, environmental, or even physically) people with break with this static definition of their sexuality.

In fact in my culture (Bini, & Igbo) until fairly recently, it was common for sexuality to be dynamic. It was not until some of my people converted to Islam and the other half to Christianity that our definitions of sexuality became as stagnant and unchanging as the west's or near east's definition. For thousands of years sexuality was described inherently by preference, not in absolute terms. In fact, we had no words fully describing the concept of sexuality until Europeans arrived and gave us these definitions. For thousands of years sexuality was dynamic in sub-Saharan Africa, especially in west and central Africa. And even in these cases where men or women preferred homosexuality, they often and frequently tended to have sex with the opposite gender. The same can be said of those who are straight. In fact many traditional Igbo and Bini still practice this form of sexuality. It’s more of the hybridized Christians and Muslims who abstain from the traditional practice. The same can be said about many pre-Christian European societies, pre-industrial East Asian societies, parts of India, much of the pre-Columbian Americas, and vast amounts of the pacific islands.

I think the concept of "homosexual" or "heterosexual" is much more descriptive of the polarization techniques used by the near eastern civilizations that often made clear distinctions between genders, classes, and races. Which by nature of proximity, western society has inherited many of those concepts and distinctions. In fact, the concept of homosexuality didn't even exist in western civilization until the advent and spread of Christianity :boggled:. A big clue for those who don’t' know.
 
Last edited:
Homosexuality and Heterosexuality describe preferences. And by the modern context of suffering it could be argued that homosexuals do suffer to a degree. But in cultures where sexuality or gender is much less hetero normative, sexuality is a very dynamic thing. And often time’s people who ascribe themselves as primarily homosexual in such cultures often do have lapses in sexuality or brief periods in which they do have sex with the opposite gender. And vice versa often applies to heterosexuals. IN fact, if humans were left to their natural devices instead of the social constructs "heterosexual, homosexual" then most humans would naturally choose to be bisexual. But this does not describe preferences; it describes innate instinctual proclivities which describe the human species by default of being mammals and primates. Preferences on the other hand are learned through experience or by natural attraction.

Unfortunately in the west and near east, sexuality is one of those things which is polarized and must be lifelong. If a person sways their mind about their sexuality once then it is seen as a negative and indecisive thing. Unfortunately, sexuality doesn't work that way and to say that sexuality cannot change throughout life is simply not true. Some people have an inherent tendency to be attracted to the same or opposite gender. But given the correct circumstances (whether it be emotional, mental, environmental, or even physically) people with break with this static definition of their sexuality.

In fact in my culture (Bini, & Igbo) until fairly recently, it was common for sexuality to be dynamic. It was not until some of my people converted to Islam and the other half to Christianity that our definitions of sexuality became as stagnant and unchanging as the west's or near east's definition. For thousands of years sexuality was described inherently by preference, not in absolute terms. In fact, we had no words fully describing the concept of sexuality until Europeans arrived and gave us these definitions. For thousands of years sexuality was dynamic in sub-Saharan Africa, especially in west and central Africa. And even in these cases where men or women preferred homosexuality, they often and frequently tended to have sex with the opposite gender. The same can be said of those who are straight. In fact many traditional Igbo and Bini still practice this form of sexuality. It’s more of the hybridized Christians and Muslims who abstain from the traditional practice. The same can be said about many pre-Christian European societies, pre-industrial East Asian societies, parts of India, much of the pre-Columbian Americas, and vast amounts of the pacific islands.

I think the concept of "homosexual" or "heterosexual" is much more descriptive of the polarization techniques used by the near eastern civilizations that often made clear distinctions between genders, classes, and races. Which by nature of proximity, western society has inherited many of those concepts and distinctions. In fact, the concept of homosexuality didn't even exist in western civilization until the advent and spread of Christianity :boggled:. A big clue for those who don’t' know.
Very interesting and informative too. Nevertheless, acknowledging that homosexuality and heterosexuality are largely social constructs doesn't mean that the constructs aren't there. For us, here, now, the distinctions seem to be real enough and saying, however true it might be, that in a different culture they wouldn't matter, doesn't address the problems we see in the culture we have.
 
Very interesting and informative too. Nevertheless, acknowledging that homosexuality and heterosexuality are largely social constructs doesn't mean that the constructs aren't there. For us, here, now, the distinctions seem to be real enough and saying, however true it might be, that in a different culture they wouldn't matter, doesn't address the problems we see in the culture we have.


Just to point this out... LYS didn't seem to be trying to address the question of how to deal with our cultural misconceptions more than tangentially, so doing what seems to me to be trying to call him out for a point that he wasn't addressing is poor form. Perhaps, next time, you could phrase your statement more as a question?
 
L.Y.S - I assume you are Nigerian? Having spent some time there, I'm curious - I found the environment HIGHLY polarized vis a vis fundamental Christianity and a vibrant Islamic community. I didn't feel the least bit comfortable there as a gay man - not that it was ever an issue. But very much a 'don't ask / don't tell' environment. My gut instinct is that Nigeria is likely to go the way of Uganda and become outwardly homophobic. Correct me if I'm wrong?
 
Just to point this out... LYS didn't seem to be trying to address the question of how to deal with our cultural misconceptions more than tangentially, so doing what seems to me to be trying to call him out for a point that he wasn't addressing is poor form. Perhaps, next time, you could phrase your statement more as a question?
I don't think I was calling LYS out, but responding to a specific statement which was, in its turn, addressed to the subject of this thread. I appreciate his point of view and perspective, even if I question its practical application. The question of whether there is such a thing as homosexuality is pretty much at the core of this issue, and I don't think it's unreasonable to discuss what is meant by the term, and whether its status as a social construct (I would dispute the term "misconception" here) makes a difference to the debate.

If I did in some way offend LYS by my response I apologize.
 
Is it possible that homosexuality is slightly more a matter of choice for women than for men?

A woman I once knew said "I wish I was more gay" - she liked the idea of women fulfilling each others' needs as an antidote to the sort of patriarchy where being male counts for everything and women are property.

If you were bi and had horrible experience with abusive men is it possible you would choose women as the safer sex?

You are attracted to who you are attracted to, but experiences can change who you are attracted to. Fluidity is a real thing. I suppose that it's like single-sex attracted people have fluidity too, but within that one sex. Bisexual people just have that one extra axis that the fluidity can be seen in.

Saying "I wish I was more gay" definitely seems like a political statement in the way you said it. If she could change her orientation, it would be "I decided to be more gay", rather than wishing it could happen.

A lot of studies do have the conclusion that women are more "fluid" than men, but I'm not sure how much of that is about social forces like taboos that play a part in how open men are. Honesty is a big issue in this type of sexological research.


Just to help lighten up the thread a bit.

These two posts reminded me of this Loudon Wainwright gem




(I got to see him perform this live the first time he ever did it, at a small July 4th festival venue in Durham, NC many years ago. Blankets on the grass sort of thing. He was great.)
 
L.Y.S - I assume you are Nigerian? Having spent some time there, I'm curious - I found the environment HIGHLY polarized vis a vis fundamental Christianity and a vibrant Islamic community. I didn't feel the least bit comfortable there as a gay man - not that it was ever an issue. But very much a 'don't ask / don't tell' environment. My gut instinct is that Nigeria is likely to go the way of Uganda and become outwardly homophobic. Correct me if I'm wrong?

Again if you read my comments you will realize I was talking about more traditional Nigerians, not converts. Converts unfortunately represent 98 + percent of the population. There were already many Muslims in our nation historically because we were so close to the major Islamic Sudanic empires (Mali, Songhai). Those practicing traditional religions are a little more than 1%. These people represent the remnants of our traditional past before European colonialism or Islamic expansion. So with this knowledge at hand, you most likely went to Nigerian and met our many resident conservatives. Unfortunately we are an extremely religious nation. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

I think the dynamic in Nigeria is going to be slightly different than that of Uganda. Most will simply ignore it and give it a socially negative stigma instead of trying to enforce laws. I highly doubt that they will officially enforce laws.
 
I don't think I was calling LYS out, but responding to a specific statement which was, in its turn, addressed to the subject of this thread. I appreciate his point of view and perspective, even if I question its practical application. The question of whether there is such a thing as homosexuality is pretty much at the core of this issue, and I don't think it's unreasonable to discuss what is meant by the term, and whether its status as a social construct (I would dispute the term "misconception" here) makes a difference to the debate.

If I did in some way offend LYS by my response I apologize.

You didn't offend me. I'm just trying to inform you and everyone else that there is no such distinction as a “permanent” sexuality. It is because of the sharp distinctions we give to sexuality that causes people in our societies to polarize the true nature of sexuality. In fact, if left up to natural devices, most humans would be bisexual. This is fact. In fact in my ancient culture it was pretty much understood that there was only a "preference" and not a sharp distinction. In fact the greatest western examples are Greece and Rome. It was pretty similar there with a few cultural differences of course. It brings into question how much culture truly influences sexuality. I think it does a great deal more than people would care to realize.
 
I remember reading a study showing that there is at most a 50% concordance for monozygotic twins and homosexuality. Given their sensory and cognitive architecture (ie: the way they process, interpret and store information) as well as many aspects of their environment would usually be pretty well identicle I take that to mean that homosexuality is resoundingly not genetic.

Paraphrased quote from president Ahmadinejad "We just don't have homosexuality in Iran".

I bet there's some homosexuality in Iran, but nowhere near as much as in the feminist, liberal, gay identity cherishing, monogamous West.
I see nothing there to indicate you thought the 50% was inaccurate or an example of Wikipedia's bias.

I wrote "at most" because I remembered the figure was inaccurate.
I remember reading a study showing that there is at most a 50% concordance for monozygotic twins and homosexuality.

I have to admit I didn't know the 50% figure would serve to illustrate the bias of Wikipedia when I posted it originally. It does make the case homosexuality's not genetic seem all the stronger though, when followed up with the 20% figure, because the 50% figure is still far lower than would occur if homosexuality were genetic.
 
Unfortunately in the west and near east, sexuality is one of those things which is polarized and must be lifelong. If a person sways their mind about their sexuality once then it is seen as a negative and indecisive thing. Unfortunately, sexuality doesn't work that way and to say that sexuality cannot change throughout life is simply not true.

It's not PC to say...no, it's buried by the gay affirming culture, that sexual orientation is fluid. This is because if it is fluid then people are understandably justified in attempting to change their sexual orientation for various reasons.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has stated, "some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person's lifetime".

The "head in the sand" of this issue is of a similar level to the "Iraq had WMDs" debacle.
 

Back
Top Bottom