Debate Now Prove your case! Is Homosexuality genetic or a choice?

[emilynghiem]

"Prove your case! Is Homosexuality genetic or a choice?"

Neither.

It's irrelevant.

As a fact of Constitutional law it makes no difference whether homosexuality manifest as a consequence of choice or birth, the condition of being gay is entitled to Constitutional protections, to the right of due process, and the right of equal protection of the law.

Proof:

“It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Consequently, the 'argument' that gay Americans are not entitled to Constitutional protections fails, as does the notion that to be gay is a mere 'lifestyle preference,' and that if gay Americans don't want to be subject to discrimination they need only 'stop being gay.'

While science might someday be able to prove or disprove that homosexuality is a result of biology and birth, it will forever be immaterial, having no bearing whatsoever on the protected liberty afforded gay Americans.

On that same note OffensivelyOpenMinded
I agree with C_Clayton_Jones that one's beliefs
and practice of orientation/identity should be protected
equally Constitutionally (similar to religious exercise and creed)

HOWEVER I contest both the Christian AND THE LGBT advocates
for pushing their beliefs through govt against the will or beliefs of others.

This is EQUALLY in violation of the same Constitutional principles
that govt should not be abused to establish a faith-based bias
or to discriminate on the basis of creed. It goes both ways,
and it applies equally to Christian and anti-gay beliefs
as it does to LGBT or pro gay beliefs.

Where C_Clayton_Jones contradicts this very argument
is pushing beliefs while negating or excluding the beliefs of others from equal protection
and inclusion in public policy. In other words, it's okay to violate "separation of
church and state" when people like CCJ are pushing beliefs they AGREE with through govt.

So of course they are happy to cite cases/rulings that AGREE with said beliefs
(while applauding when opposing rulings or laws like DOMA are "struck down
as unconstitutional" even though the SAME arguments
would also apply to the LGBT policies as unconstitutional)

This bias shows discrimination by creed.

 

[320 Years of History]

Prove your case! Is Homosexuality genetic or a choice?

That's it. No fancy thesis, no viewpoint of my own (yet). All that lies here is a challenge to you the reader to prove the origins of homosexuality. Who here can make the more compelling case for their side?

If one merely wants an answer to the title question that speaks to causality, one is probably at something of a loss to say accurately whether homosexuality is genetically caused. The simple fact is that we don't yet know the cause(s) of sexual orientation -- straight, gay or otherwise. We do know is that homosexual coitus does not produce offspring and we know that heterosexual intercourse can.

There have been two studies that found correlations between homosexuality and biological observations (Bailey; Hamer). Other studies have uncovered anatomical correlates (LeVay; Swaab). All well and good, certainly interesting reading; however, even ignoring the criticisms of those studies, they have found only anatomical and genetic correlations, but a correlation is not expressly a cause; neither is it not an etiology.

So where does that leave one? Well, that depends on who's considering any given question pertaining to homosexual orientation and their own capacity for objectivity and their predilection for bias. A correlation shows that X and Y occur together at a statistically material frequency. In other words, the observed phenomenon is, with a very high degree of confidence, not random.

Objective and rationally valid thinkers -- no matter their personal take on the politics of sexual orientation, religion, or anything else -- thus will reason, correctly (Nizkor Project; Logically Fallacious), that while a meaningful correlation doesn't identify a cause, it also doesn't occur without cause even when they don't know the etiology for the observed correlation. That degree of objectivity is consistent with Simon LeVay's remark, "Time and again I have been described as someone who 'proved that homosexuality is genetic' ... I did not." (LeVay, 5, p. 122)

The thing is that neither LeVay nor anyone else has identified the etiology of sexual orientation. A fine summary of the key findings of the major studies of genetic correlates of sexual orientation is here. It also provides summaries of the criticisms made of those studies . Read it as you see fit, but know that every one of the studies has at best only found correlation.

What about non-objective/irrational folks? What will they say about the as yet undiscovered etiology of sexual orientation? The simple answer is "just about anything other than what's noted above." Broadly speaking and with regard to genetic etiology, we know they'll argue that because we haven't found a genetic cause, there must not be one. To conclude so is clearly specious. If I look on the Moon for human life, I'll never find it because it's not there. If I'm looking for human life, however, I will realize there are literally trillions of places I need to look before I can conclude it exists in just one place, Earth. In other words, what one finds depends on where one looks.

So what does one, one like me who isn't going to conduct my own scientific study(s) of the the matter, do in the face of such uncertainty? Well, one keeps reading and looking for new information. If one is a scientist who cares to find the answer, one keeps looking a cause, or one decides it doesn't matter enough and stops looking for the cause. Either way, scientist or layman, what one who is objective does not do is conclude that the cause is genetic, environmental, parental nurturing practices, social cues, the consequence of foods eaten, due to alien programming, or anything else. On posits only that something or some things is/are the cause.

Now I'll come to my answer, and, quite frankly, it's substantively no different than that which another writer (Unknown) offered at the end of his own review of the various papers and books noted below, so I'll offer his succinct summary and state that I concur.

After reading and researching many more articles than I have had time to talk about here, I would have to say it seems to me that at this stage of scientific knowledge, we have to conclude that there is a biological basis for sexual orientation, but that this is only a small part of whatever constitutes the predisposition. It seems fairly certain that there is not just a single gene responsible for turning us on more to one or other sex, but that there must be several, if not many, genes and not necessarily acting alone. Whatever these genes are, they are probably responsible for the way our bodies produce chemical substances, such as serotonin and dopamine, which in turn affect sexual identity, orientation and drive, in similar ways our genes also help create our proclivity for characteristics such as anxiety, depression, risk taking, even aging and weight control, and perhaps — as our old friend Károly Mária Kertbeny might add — our responsiveness to the body odours of our fellow human beings.
​

For me, the simple truth is I really don't care whether sexual orientation is biological, psychological, a deliberate choice, or something else. I don't care about the gay man who has the hots for me and I don't have the hots for him. I can live with that being the desire or lack thereof which we both have. Unrequited desire is not a strange thing to me; I suspect it's hardly foreign to most folks. He'll get over the fact that I'm not willing to bed him. Similarly, I don't care about the ugly woman who has the hots for me. The dynamics are 100% the same. I have absolutely no different response. "It's just not happening," is all I have to say to either of them.

Since I have no different reaction to the advances of gay men than I do with unacceptable women, I don't see any point in my caring what be the etiology explaining either's sexual orientation or in making something of it. What do I gain from making something of it? Nothing! Not one damn thing. We might become friends at some point, but that relationship won't result from anything sexual. So when it comes to the cause(s) of sexual orientation, for now, the best I can muster for now is to consider the discovered correlations and possible causes as "interesting information to obtain for the sake of knowing." If at some point scientists determine the etiology of sexual orientation, and they also figure out how to control the workings of the etiology, it might be that we can control, at which point knowing may be useful for something.

If given my way, I would prefer the cause of sexual orientation to be something that is non-genetic, non-psychological, but that is a consequence of nature....maybe something like the number of times some certain fetal cells encounter neutrinos or some other uncontrollable event of nature. That way we can move past this issue and also not bother with trying to control or alter it. Sometimes, things just are what they are and the more stuff that is that way, in my mind, the better. It keeps life simple.

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
-- Serenity Prayer
​

References:
Above I have referenced the following works. In my prose, I parenthetically note the first author's name followed by a digit if the author has multiple publications shown below. The digit corresponds to the number preceding the referenced work.

1. Bailey JM, Pillard RC. "A genetic study of male sexual orientation"
2. Hamer DH, Hu S, Magnuson VL, Hu N, Pattatucci AML. "A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation"
3. LeVay S. "A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men"
4. LeVay S, Hamer DH. "Evidence for a Biological Influence in Male Homosexuality"
5. LeVay S. Sexual Brain
6. Logically Fallacious. "Affirming the Consequent"
7. The Nizkor Project. "Post Hoc"
8. Swaab DF, Hofman MA. "An enlarged suprachiasmatic nucleus in homosexual men"
9. Unknown author. "Born That Way The Biological Basis for Homosexuality"
10. Abrams M. "Born Gay" -- I didn't refer to this article, but it's an interesting read.

 

[rdean]

Homosexuals don't breed, hence genetic homosexuality is impossible.

Of course they do. How else would we have so many closeted Republicans.

 

[rdean]

Some things don't require research.

If you look at a beautiful woman's body and want to touch here and there and you are a man, you're straight.

If you look at a naked man and are fascinated and want to "touch" and more, and you are a man, you're gay.

It's not something that can be learned. It just "is". Like breathing. Something very few forget how to do and no one really has to spend much time learning.

Consider this a "teaching moment".

 

[320 Years of History]

Some things don't require research.

If you look at a beautiful woman's body and want to touch here and there and you are a man, you're straight.

If you look at a naked man and are fascinated and want to "touch" and more, and you are a man, you're gay.

It's not something that can be learned. It just "is". Like breathing. Something very few forget how to do and no one really has to spend much time learning.

Consider this a "teaching moment".

??? Say what?

Where is the sense in the lines you've presented above. For example, I suppose when one sees a cat or dog and wants to pet it, touching it here and there, one is neither homosexual nor heterosexual? WTH? It may be convenient to oversimplify, but in this thread where one of the rules is "all arguments must be substantiated by citing credible and scientific sources," I'm just dying to see the science behind the arguments you've presented above.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not ragging on you personally; my remarks pertain to your conditional claims, in large part because your arguments are presented entirely as such. Also, I can tell you have an open-minded view toward homosexuals. That's great. But the thread isn't about what one's views are; it's about whether sexual orientation is genetic or a matter of choice.

A couple logical inferences one can validly draw from your arguments:

• For a straight man, a woman needs to be beautiful for one to want to "touch here and there."
• For a gay man, the mere presence of a naked man (apparently animate or not) inspires the desire to "touch and more."
• "Touching," rather than the sex act or a mental affinity, is the expressed and defining outcome of sexual orientation.

Do you honestly believe that? I certainly do not.

 

[Ernie S.]

Homosexuals don't breed, hence genetic homosexuality is impossible.

Of course they do. How else would we have so many closeted Republicans.

OK Dweeb: if homosexuality is genetic, explain why in identical twins, if one twin is gay, the other is usually straight 89% for men and 86% for women.

 

[Boss]

Here's the thing... and this is also why it's so confusing to liberals...

Homosexual, like transgender, are words that describe based on actions, not genetics. When you think of a homosexual, you presume it's someone who is having, or has had a homosexual relationship. That is an action and choice. When you think of a transgender, you think of someone who is male dressing as a woman... that is an action and choice. A perfectly "straight" person can THINK about having sex with same gender or dressing in drag all day long... it doesn't make them anything... even if such thoughts stimulate them sexually. It's like a bank robber or assassin... they aren't those things because they THINK about doing something.

 

[320 Years of History]

A perfectly "straight" person can THINK about having sex with same gender or dressing in drag all day long... it doesn't make them anything... even if such thoughts stimulate them sexually.

Well, in my mind, that would make such a "perfectly straight" person "gay curious." That's something, even if the something it is isn't gay.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

What is a woody caused by a vibration? Vibrosexual? ROFL you homophobes are ridiculous.

When I was 16, I could get a woody thinking about cauliflower or a calculus equation at school.

Heck, I can still remember all the snickers when one of the guys got called to the chalkboard as they took a little longer than otherwise necessary to get up out of their seat.

 

[Boss]

A perfectly "straight" person can THINK about having sex with same gender or dressing in drag all day long... it doesn't make them anything... even if such thoughts stimulate them sexually.

Well, in my mind, that would make such a "perfectly straight" person "gay curious." That's something, even if the something it is isn't gay.

Again... the point being... one can be "gay curious" or "have gay tendencies" ... be "in the closet" or whatever... We generally don't consider someone to be "homosexual" until they engage in an action by choice. A pedophile isn't really a pedophile as long as the thought remains in his head. It is the action versus the thought of action.

 

[Boss]

What is a woody caused by a vibration? Vibrosexual? ROFL you homophobes are ridiculous.

When I was 16, I could get a woody thinking about cauliflower or a calculus equation at school.

Heck, I can still remember all the snickers when one of the guys got called to the chalkboard as they took a little longer than otherwise necessary to get up out of their seat.

Some friends and I were discussing this over the weekend... What if you saw a transgender but didn't know they were and they turned you on? Does that make you gay?

 

[Syriusly]

Here's the thing... and this is also why it's so confusing to liberals...

Homosexual, like transgender, are words that describe based on actions, not genetics..

Boss- like so many homophobic bigots- has a problem with definitions and words- they like to make up their own.

Homosexual- like heterosexual- are words that describe attraction- not actions.

I was a heterosexual even before I ever had sex.

Now Boss......maybe he was not.

 

[Syriusly]

A perfectly "straight" person can THINK about having sex with same gender or dressing in drag all day long... it doesn't make them anything... even if such thoughts stimulate them sexually.

Well, in my mind, that would make such a "perfectly straight" person "gay curious." That's something, even if the something it is isn't gay.

Again... the point being... one can be "gay curious" or "have gay tendencies" ... be "in the closet" or whatever... We generally don't consider someone to be "homosexual" until they engage in an action by choice. A pedophile isn't really a pedophile as long as the thought remains in his head. It is the action versus the thought of action.

So you weren't straight until you had sex- and a virgin is never straight?

And by the way- you have described the difference between a 'pedophile'- and a 'child molester'- a pedophile is someone who is attracted to prepubescent children- but hopefully never acts on those attractions- if he does- he is a criminal- a child molester.

 

[Lilah]

A perfectly "straight" person can THINK about having sex with same gender or dressing in drag all day long... it doesn't make them anything... even if such thoughts stimulate them sexually.

Well, in my mind, that would make such a "perfectly straight" person "gay curious." That's something, even if the something it is isn't gay.

Again... the point being... one can be "gay curious" or "have gay tendencies" ... be "in the closet" or whatever... We generally don't consider someone to be "homosexual" until they engage in an action by choice. A pedophile isn't really a pedophile as long as the thought remains in his head. It is the action versus the thought of action.

For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he.

 

[Boss]

For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he.

A great parameter for evaluation of sin in a religious belief. Has zero to do with my point.

 

[Lilah]

For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he.

A great parameter for evaluation of sin in a religious belief. Has zero to do with my point.

Has everything to do with your point. What a person dwells on and thinks about is what they are.

 

[Boss]

Has everything to do with your point. What a person dwells on and thinks about is what they are.

Not really. Since I was a young boy, I have had this deep dark secret desire to know what it's like to rob a bank and get away with it. In my head, I have fantasized about how I would do it.... worked out my plans... the getaway, the whole bit. I'm never going to ACT on it. That doesn't make me a bank robber, does it?

Now when it comes to sexuality... I personally know a guy who has struggled his whole life with his sexual identity. He isn't a homosexual but he could be. He has all the tendencies... but he is devoutly religious and believes it's a sin to act out on his sexual desires. He is in his 60s and single... never been married, never has had a girlfriend as far as I know. Is he "gay"? ...I don't know, I guess it depends on how one would define "gay" ...he isn't engaging in homosexual relations.

 

[emilynghiem]

Here's the thing... and this is also why it's so confusing to liberals...

Homosexual, like transgender, are words that describe based on actions, not genetics. When you think of a homosexual, you presume it's someone who is having, or has had a homosexual relationship. That is an action and choice. When you think of a transgender, you think of someone who is male dressing as a woman... that is an action and choice. A perfectly "straight" person can THINK about having sex with same gender or dressing in drag all day long... it doesn't make them anything... even if such thoughts stimulate them sexually. It's like a bank robber or assassin... they aren't those things because they THINK about doing something.

Dear Boss if this is compared to BELIEFS then there is both the PRACTICE of it that can be limited where it's not imposing on the public or on public policy/insitutions, and there remains the beliefs ppl have, which are internal personal choice that govt cannot regulate, mandate , punish or otherwise discriminate against.

Clearly not all ppl BELIEVE it is perfectly behavioral as a free choice like someone's choice of dress or choice of wedding rituals. Because it is not proven nor disproven, but faith based that people "might be born that way" such as by brain development in the womb, then this part of the argument is still left to the people. It cannot be imposed by got since it is not proven as "not a choice of behavior" but since enough ppl do recognize the BELIEF that identity/orientation is born and not a choice, neither can give or laws exclude such beliefs and practice. Thus the people need to agree on policies to recognize in public, or else keep their beliefs and practice in private. It goes both ways, with faith based beliefs, that govt can neither establish nor prohibit and cannot discriminate by Creed .

Unless people of diverse beliefs agree on policy, any law or ruling biased one way or another technically violates the First or Fourteenth Amendments on equal protection of ppls free exercise, whether seen as a choice or not a choice, spiritual determined or born trait, behavior belief or both, since none of this is proven nor disproven but remains faith based like someone's religious or spiritual practice (that is protected in private but can't be endorsed by govt in public in conflict with the equal beliefs of others).

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Homosexuals don't breed, hence genetic homosexuality is impossible.

Sterile people don't breed either, but certainly sterility can be genetic.

But the fact is, homosexuality is not a choice. NO ONE chooses to have a mental disorder.

 

[emilynghiem]

Has everything to do with your point. What a person dwells on and thinks about is what they are.

Not really. Since I was a young boy, I have had this deep dark secret desire to know what it's like to rob a bank and get away with it. In my head, I have fantasized about how I would do it.... worked out my plans... the getaway, the whole bit. I'm never going to ACT on it. That doesn't make me a bank robber, does it?

Now when it comes to sexuality... I personally know a guy who has struggled his whole life with his sexual identity. He isn't a homosexual but he could be. He has all the tendencies... but he is devoutly religious and believes it's a sin to act out on his sexual desires. He is in his 60s and single... never been married, never has had a girlfriend as far as I know. Is he "gay"? ...I don't know, I guess it depends on how one would define "gay" ...he isn't engaging in homosexual relations.

Dear Boss it may be a passing thought . Or it could be an indication of longterm conditions such as a personality disorder, schizophrenic schizoid or sociopathic brain pattern, etc. If it is a "disability" there are ways to recognize this as a condition you cannot help.

If it is dangerous and poses a threat to health and safety, why not require screening such as if someone shows signs of Ebola they aren't allowed to be integrated into public with others as this is a level 4 biohazardous pathogen that has to be isolated.

If it is not a dangerous condition, then treat it like other disabilities. If someone is getting or needs help with counseling for a condition they didn't choose, use common sense in how to accommodate them where it doesn't impose unfairly on others. For example if a Vet or rape victim has PTSD and might freak out and panic if someone triggers cues or memories, it may be best to restrict public interactions and have them supervised during recovery by an accompanying assistant, not expect everyone else to change or work around their conditions in public just because the way they normally act could trigger a traumatic reaction.