Homosexuality: genetic, chosen, or environmental?

[Valley Oak]

This debate brings me to the old, tired, and useless argument that I've yawned over for the past three decades and some years. Whether a person is gay by choice, by environment, or by genetics is irrelevant. What is relevant is that a person's human, civil, and equal rights be respected. That's the bottom line.

Edward

[Neshamah]

Spoken like a true Libertarian!

~ Neshamah

[Sylph]

It may be old and tired to you, Valley Oak, but obviously plenty of people are still interested in the question! I totally agree...Everyone deserves the same civil rights, no matter how they came to be gay.
Even some evangelicals are having to conclude that gayness is inborn, according to this article which discusses many of the current theories. Most fundamental religious types, however, will never accept that homosexuality is genetic because it goes against their world-view. Even if they grew up with a gay cousin:
https://www.boston.com/news/globe/ma...es_people_gay/
"….Instead of looking for a gay gene, they stress that they are looking for several genes that cause either attraction to men or attraction to women. Those same genes would work one way in heterosexual women and another way in homosexual men. The UCLA lab is examining how these genes might be turned "up" or "down." It's not a question of what genes you have, but rather which ones you use, says Bocklandt. "I have the genes in my body to make a vagina and carry a baby, but I don't use them, because I am a man." In studying the genes of gay sheep, for example, he's found some that are turned "way up" compared with the straight rams.
The lab is also testing an intriguing theory involving imprinted genes. Normally, we have two copies of every gene, one from each parent, and both copies work. They're identical, so it doesn't matter which copy comes from which parent. But with imprinted genes, that does matter. Although both copies are physically there, one copy - either from the mom or the dad - is blocked from working. Think of an airplane with an engine on each wing, except one of the engines is shut down. A recent Duke University study suggests humans have hundreds of imprinted genes, including one on the X chromosome that previous research has tied to sexual orientation.
With imprinted genes, there is no backup engine. So if there's something atypical in the copy from mom, the copy from dad cannot be turned on. The UCLA lab is now collecting DNA from identical twins in which one twin is straight and the other is gay. Because the twins begin as genetic clones, if a gene is imprinted in one twin, it will be in the other twin as well. Normally, as the fetuses are developing, each time a cell divides, the DNA separates and makes a copy of itself, replicating all kinds of genetic information. It's a complicated but incredibly accurate process. But the coding to keep the backup engine shut down on an imprinted gene is less accurate.
So how might imprinted genes help explain why one identical twin would be straight and the other gay? Say there's an imprinted gene for attraction to females, and there's something atypical in the copy the twin brothers get from mom. As all that replicating is going on, the imprinting (to keep the copy from dad shut down) proceeds as expected in one twin, and he ends up gay. But somehow with his brother, the coding for the imprinting is lost, and rather than remain shut down, the fuel flows to fire up the backup engine from dad. And that twin turns out to be straight."

[Valley Oak]

Scientific research, as a matter of principle, is a good and necessary endeavor for the sake of knowledge and I applaud whatever scientists come up with. I am willing to pay very high taxes to further the progress of science in general and therefore, the expanded body of human knowledge.

This said, I remember too clearly since more than thirty years ago having this argument back in the 70s about whether or not being a 'homo' was inborn or not. But in reality, these were merely 'surface' arguments for the true agendas behind them. For example, the people who argued that homosexuality was not inborn were taking this position because in their honest opinion they strongly believed that this sexual orientation was 'sick,' 'perverted,' and required either medical or psychiatric (with medication) help.

For the 'anti-inborn' crowd, which at that time were the overwhelming majority, their position was a pretext for condemning homosexuality as an illness. In other words, what these people were arguing (between the lines, so to speak) was that homosexuality is not natural and therefore it was wrong and had to be dealt with. This logic, in turn, served the true source of their negative approach to homosexuality: that it was immoral.

The reasons why our culture is so homophobic are manifold. Obviously, we Americans are much more intolerant and are far less democratic than our European counterparts, who have legalized or decriminalized homosexuality and gay marriage. There has been gay marriage in European nations for more than a decade, such as Denmark.

Democracy is also a culture that is deeply rooted in the in the individual mindsets of millions of people. If most people believe in slavery, then our democratic institutions will create and protect slavery again, as they once did. If most Americans are against gay marriage, then our political institutions will ban it, as is the case now in 48 of the 50 states of the most 'democratic' nation in the world. European mindsets are clearly more democratic than those of the American people and yet their institutions have a great deal more government intervention and much higher taxes than the U.S. To me, this is not a surprise because there is no contradiction; indeed, it is very consistent. But Americans don't see things this way, especially Libertarians and Republicans.

Some of the most important reasons why U.S. culture and it's 'democratic' institutions are so homophobic include religion, tradition, history, the law, and the inflexibility to change the laws. And to a large extent, especially in the last two or three decades, our two-party system is to blame. I know this as a political scientist because the two-party system is horribly undemocratic, doesn't allow very easily for dissenting opinions, and stifles the Democratic Party, fearing not getting their candidates elected. For information on this phenomenon please read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law

Edward

It may be old and tired to you, Valley Oak, but obviously plenty of people are still interested in the question! I totally agree...Everyone deserves the same civil rights, no matter how they came to be gay.
Even some evangelicals are having to conclude that gayness is inborn, according to this article which discusses many of the current theories. Most fundamental religious types, however, will never accept that homosexuality is genetic because it goes against their world-view. Even if they grew up with a gay cousin:
https://www.boston.com/news/globe/ma...es_people_gay/
"….Instead of looking for a gay gene, they stress that they are looking for several genes that cause either attraction to men or attraction to women. Those same genes would work one way in heterosexual women and another way in homosexual men. The UCLA lab is examining how these genes might be turned "up" or "down." It's not a question of what genes you have, but rather which ones you use, says Bocklandt. "I have the genes in my body to make a vagina and carry a baby, but I don't use them, because I am a man." In studying the genes of gay sheep, for example, he's found some that are turned "way up" compared with the straight rams.
The lab is also testing an intriguing theory involving imprinted genes. Normally, we have two copies of every gene, one from each parent, and both copies work. They're identical, so it doesn't matter which copy comes from which parent. But with imprinted genes, that does matter. Although both copies are physically there, one copy - either from the mom or the dad - is blocked from working. Think of an airplane with an engine on each wing, except one of the engines is shut down. A recent Duke University study suggests humans have hundreds of imprinted genes, including one on the X chromosome that previous research has tied to sexual orientation.
With imprinted genes, there is no backup engine. So if there's something atypical in the copy from mom, the copy from dad cannot be turned on. The UCLA lab is now collecting DNA from identical twins in which one twin is straight and the other is gay. Because the twins begin as genetic clones, if a gene is imprinted in one twin, it will be in the other twin as well. Normally, as the fetuses are developing, each time a cell divides, the DNA separates and makes a copy of itself, replicating all kinds of genetic information. It's a complicated but incredibly accurate process. But the coding to keep the backup engine shut down on an imprinted gene is less accurate.
So how might imprinted genes help explain why one identical twin would be straight and the other gay? Say there's an imprinted gene for attraction to females, and there's something atypical in the copy the twin brothers get from mom. As all that replicating is going on, the imprinting (to keep the copy from dad shut down) proceeds as expected in one twin, and he ends up gay. But somehow with his brother, the coding for the imprinting is lost, and rather than remain shut down, the fuel flows to fire up the backup engine from dad. And that twin turns out to be straight."

[SteveMiller]

I believe homosexuality is not a choice. If homosexuality was a choice, all these republican senators would certainly not be cruising airport restrooms.

s

This debate brings me to the old, tired, and useless argument that I've yawned over for the past three decades and some years. Whether a person is gay by choice, by environment, or by genetics is irrelevant. What is relevant is that a person's human, civil, and equal rights be respected. That's the bottom line.

Edward

[Mead Rose]

Choice, Nature or Nurture DOES come into play.

If there are genetic predispositions to homosexuality, forcing gays into heterosexual marriages tends to create more gays.

I think the whole issue is a distraction. I think it is far easier for someone to be self-righteous about sexuality instead of bringing an end to abuse, hate and violence. From my perspective, the suppression of sexuality is at the root of abuse, hate and violence.

I believe homosexuality is not a choice. If homosexuality was a choice, all these republican senators would certainly not be cruising airport restrooms.

s

[SteveMiller]

>> Choice, Nature or Nurture DOES come into play.

Which one? Or did you mean to use the word "AND"?

I disagree about the suppression of sexuality being at the root. I put my money on GREED.

Choice, Nature or Nurture DOES come into play.

If there are genetic predispositions to homosexuality, forcing gays into heterosexual marriages tends to create more gays.

I think the whole issue is a distraction. I think it is far easier for someone to be self-righteous about sexuality instead of bringing an end to abuse, hate and violence. From my perspective, the suppression of sexuality is at the root of abuse, hate and violence.

[Valley Oak]

This is an awesome idea. Say more. Develop this further.

So if I'm getting what you're trying to say, at least with the elements in your post that attract my attention, the suppression of sexuality is what is motivating the pro 8 forces in our society? Is this on track? If so, then what is it that is motivating people who continue to support Prop 8, for example? Laziness? Or a fanatic, quasi religious agenda. Or...?

Thanks,

Edward

Choice, Nature or Nurture DOES come into play.

If there are genetic predispositions to homosexuality, forcing gays into heterosexual marriages tends to create more gays.

I think the whole issue is a distraction. I think it is far easier for someone to be self-righteous about sexuality instead of bringing an end to abuse, hate and violence. From my perspective, the suppression of sexuality is at the root of abuse, hate and violence.

[Mead Rose]

Very well:

I am drawing significantly from an interesting book by Philip Slater called, The Pursuit of Loneliness, American Culture at the Breaking Point.

In his book, Slater discusses how we as Americans, rather than living simply, instead have an odd form of sexual sublimation where desirable behaviors such as productivity ar completely over emphasized to the point where they effectively supplant human interaction.

Effectively, a man struggles to make himself attractive through career achievement to the point of becoming a workaholic and a woman is complicit in this process by favoring the earmarks of "security" over actual human interaction.

Ultimately this leads to fragmentation of the family as both men and women enter the workforce leaving no one minding the store of the relationship, to say nothing of rearing the children. Since World War II, weapons manufacturers such as Westinghouse have promulgated the idea of the nuclear family so they can sell more products. Essentially, a washing machine goes to 4 people rather than a household of 12. Today, one is not a chic single or divorcee without a washing machine of one's own. The weapons manufacturers have won at the expense of human interaction and the environment.

Tied into this is the scapegoating of pleasure-seeking and the exaltation of violence. Need I go on?

This is an awesome idea. Say more. Develop this further.

So if I'm getting what you're trying to say, at least with the elements in your post that attract my attention, the suppression of sexuality is what is motivating the pro 8 forces in our society? Is this on track? If so, then what is it that is motivating people who continue to support Prop 8, for example? Laziness? Or a fanatic, quasi religious agenda. Or...?

Thanks,

Edward

[Valley Oak]

So you're saying that the greater economic interests in a society actively suppress people's sexuality for the sake of profit or growth? Freud said something similar to this. If this is what you are saying then it is a well established fact since over a century ago. But most people are still unaware.

More specifically, Freud said that people's sexual frustration leads them to use other avenues to express themselves (work, hobbies, religious activities, volunteer work, etc), even though this is a sexually perverted and unhealthy way to live. Ideally, people should be able to express themselves sexually in the unique ways that satisfy their needs.

And, the maintained pressures of sexual frustration through legislation, religion, and other methods, fits in perfectly with this world view.

Edward

Very well:

I am drawing significantly from an interesting book by Philip Slater called, The Pursuit of Loneliness, American Culture at the Breaking Point.

In his book, Slater discusses how we as Americans, rather than living simply, instead have an odd form of sexual sublimation where desirable behaviors such as productivity ar completely over emphasized to the point where they effectively supplant human interaction.

Effectively, a man struggles to make himself attractive through career achievement to the point of becoming a workaholic and a woman is complicit in this process by favoring the earmarks of "security" over actual human interaction.

Ultimately this leads to fragmentation of the family as both men and women enter the workforce leaving no one minding the store of the relationship, to say nothing of rearing the children. Since World War II, weapons manufacturers such as Westinghouse have promulgated the idea of the nuclear family so they can sell more products. Essentially, a washing machine goes to 4 people rather than a household of 12. Today, one is not a chic single or divorcee without a washing machine of one's own. The weapons manufacturers have won at the expense of human interaction and the environment.

Tied into this is the scapegoating of pleasure-seeking and the exaltation of violence. Need I go on?

[Sylph]

Did anyone look at the study Butch posted? It was trying to say that romantic attraction is shaped by nurture and not inborn.
https://www.soc.duke.edu/~jmoody77/205a/ecp/bearman_bruckner_ajs.pdf
"The etiology of human same-sex romantic attraction is generally
framed in terms of (1) social influences, (2) genetic influences, or (3)
hormonal influences. In this article, we show that adolescent males
who are opposite-sex twins are twice as likely as expected to report
same-sex attraction; and that the pattern of concordance (similarity
across pairs) of same-sex preference for sibling pairs does not suggest
genetic influence independent of social context. Our data falsify the
hormone transfer hypothesis by isolating a single condition that
eliminates the opposite-sex twin effect we observe—the presence of
an older same-sex sibling. We also consider and reject a speculative
evolutionary theory that rests on observing birth-order effects on
same-sex orientation. In contrast, our results support the hypothesis
that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence
shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences."

Trouble is, the Bearman and Bruckner study was done before Bogaert did the definitive study contrasting families with natural siblings vs step-siblings. The B & B study also says that in boy-girl twins, the 16.8 % of the boys were likely to be gay. Wow, that’s a pretty high percentage! Something’s a little ‘off’ here.
https://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2006/09/bearman-and-bru/
"The past few years have given us several reports that suggest a pre-natal basis for sexual orientation. Such studies have included observations about gay people such as brain activity in response to possible pheromones, disproportionate incidence of left-handedness, and the elimination of social factors from the fraternal birth order effect. They have also included observations of others such as mothers of some gay men displaying rare single deactivated chromosomes and hypothalamus variances in the brains of same-sex attracted rams.

Viewed collectively, while there has not yet been determined any single “cause” which determines whether orientation will be towards the same or opposite sex, these studies all support the theory that much of that determination is made prior to birth. Dr. Anthony Bogaert reported in 1996 that the likelihood of homosexual orientation increases for each older brother a man has. Nurture advocates spun this to suggest that the presence of older brothers in the home resulted in an environment that contributed to the younger child being feminized.

Bogaert repeated his work, this time observing the presence of step-siblings or the absence of natural siblings. His conclusion was that the presence or absence of step or natural siblings was not correlative and that the only observance was with the number of previous male siblings to have passed through the mothers womb.

The Bearman & Bruckner study took place between the two studies and purports to disprove the first. In fact, it goes so far as to claim the opposite.
Bogaert’s findings and those of Bearman and Bruckner are contradictory. They cannot both be right. Bogaert says older brothers increase the likelihood of homosexuality. Bearman and Bruckner say older brothers decrease the likelihood.

But, then again, Bearman and Bruckner also say that one fifth of adolescent males with a female twin and no older brothers are same-sex attracted. And that would indeed make a great headline if it were true.

The problem with the B&B paper is that it requires suspension of disbelief. To accept that they showed support for socialization as an etiology for sexual orientation, you have also to accept that 10% of males are gay. To believe that it casts serious doubt on Bogaert, you also have to believe that 17% of guys with a female twin are gay."