Homosexuality: Genetics or Choice?

[Xenophobe3691]

There wasn't only one society in history that had homosexuality. MOST did. The Middle East was FILLED with it. Despite all the gay bashing in the Bible, I can name one VERY important figure who was gay. King David. In those days, homosexuality was encouraged, it was seen as fit and manly. I wonder what ever happened...

[Alyrium Denryle]

Well, I am of the opinion that homosexuality is 100%(or damn close to it) biologial.

Think about it...Studies of insects and sheep have shown that it is caused at least partially by genes...Hell you ca engineer gay fruit flies..

In sheep, the size and activity levels of structures in the ypothalmus control which gender a malle sheep will be attracted too...

[Sobbastchianno]

Your environment has a large effect on who you are. For example, identical twins could be raised seperately, and have completely different heights among other things. If your parents are gay, your friends are gay or approve of it, then more than likely you're going to be that way. There are those that go the complete opposite way though. (just as my parents are protestants, and I'm an athiest...though they don't know it yet.)

Whether one's parents are gay, or there are gay friends is so totally irrlelvant. My parents were both heterosexual, (they had 12 children, nuff said), and five of those twelve children are homosexual (who'da thunk it?).

Twin studies have proven that genetics is a huge factor, considering even twins raised apart have a better than 50% likelihood of having the same sexual orientation, but genetics is NOT all of it. I think environment (meaning in utero environment) plays a big part in it as well.

The issue is complex, there is no one answer, except to realize that we are all human.

[Darth Wong]

People have hinted that if it's inherited(genetic), it should have been bred out due to a significant lack of breeding in homosexuals. Why hasn't diabetes been bred out to a significant number of people dying of it?

Not to defend an argument I don't actually subscribe to, but diabetes hasn't been bred out because it's quite possible to breed before (or after) your diabetes manifests itself. The premature death of a diabetic is irrelevant from a standpoint of evolutionary suitability if he or she can successfully reproduce first.

As for homosexuality, it is not "bred out" because it is not a distinct characteristic. It is merely one end of a continuous spectrum. The notion of a completely straight man is unrealistic; the "straightness" of a heterosexual is probably exaggerated by social conditioning. Put enough heterosexual males together for a long enough period of time with no female companionship (see French foreign legion), and you will find that straight men can be a little more flexible than expected.

If we imagine that people can be 90% hetero and 10% homo or 60% hetero and 40% homo etc., it's not hard to see how homosexuals could persist in society despite not breeding. They are simply sitting slightly outside the normal range of a continuously variable characteristic.

[Frank Hipper]

Not to defend an argument I don't actually subscribe to, but diabetes hasn't been bred out because it's quite possible to breed before (or after) your diabetes manifests itself. The premature death of a diabetic is irrelevant from a standpoint of evolutionary suitability if he or she can successfully reproduce first.

I knew how weak that was, and for exactly the reason you pointed out, when I posted it. I had a couple things going on at the same time and left it up, me being lazy and all.

I did, however, leave something up on purpose that should be incredibly easy to refute in this Forum, in another topic, for the sole purpose of seeing if anyone would take the few minutes to google it. Nothing yet.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

This is not a question whether homosexuality is wrong or right. It's ponderings of why certain individuals are straight or lean in other directions.

If you chose the "Other" option, please elaborate.

But I'm sure no matter what you chose, most are going to elaborate anyway.

Crimson Raine

PS - I decided I really need a nickname. PM ideas?

It's an environmental thing. Yes, genetics seem to play a role in it. Sexual attraction is one of the oldest bits of baggage sitting in our genome. Studies have been done on identical twins and siblings. If your twin, or even a simple biological sibling turns out to be a homosexual, then you stand a much greater chance (About a 50% and a 25% chance respectively) of turning out homosexual yourself. (Whereas if you have an adopted sibling who is homosexual, your odds are the same as everybody else's.)

If you have a strong tendency towards homosexuality, and the social environment you grow up in isn't too oppresive, then chances are, you will become a homosexual. If the environment one is raised in is heavily oppressive, then you could end up with a very unhappy heterosexual. If one only has mild tendencies in that direction, then they could go either way, the human brain is a very plastic thing.

P.S. If, by nickname, you mean a custom title, you've got quite a number of posts to make before you get there. Otherwise, I dunno.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The environment I grew up in was highly oppressive atually...

[Trytostaydead]

Time to throw in my two cents. There were several experiments done to determine whether or not homosexuality was linked to genetics and I'll do my best to summarize them (as best as I can REMEMBER them) and try to break it down for you non-bio geeks out there..

One experiment was done during the AIDS epidemic of the 80's. When AIDS was still new and people were doing their best to find out exactly what it was and how to stop it. A pathologist took the body of several men that had died from AIDS and other diseases and divided them up into heterosexual and homosexual males (some of you might already catch on to the problem with this experiment right here).

What he found out was in a nutshell that the INAH region of the hypothalamus in heterosexual males was twice as large as those of homosexuals. The hypothalamus of course being a VERY important part of the brain regulating sex. Now, the problem with this experiment was that other researchers had a hard time replicating his results exactly and there were other factors that could have skewed the results (ie the patients having AIDS could have feasibly contributed to the results). The main problems were that the patients had to volunteer the information they were homosexual, it was a small sample size (VERY IMPORTANT in an experiment that you have a motherfucking HUGE sample size unless you're cocksure about your results) and of course, the stains used. As most of you know, the brain is not divided with neat little lines and when you get into specific nuclei regions of the brain, it gets VERY difficult when it's sliced into micrometers and then quantified. A lot of it depends on the individual researcher, so in all.. it was inconclusive.

--------------------

Another experiment done was to test whether or not in twins, if one twin is homosexual what is the percentage that the other would be too? In monozygotic (identical) twins, what they discovered was that there was a ~56% odds that if one was gay the other would be too. Now, a lot of people might say that 56% is huge and significant but it really is not to say anything about the genetics. With those odds, OJ Simpson would've been convicted, that murdering son of a bitch.

Also, there was only a very small sample population taken which does not create any impressive statistics, nor was there experiments done of seperated twins either (due to small population). Also not taken into factor were environmental differences, such as rearing and etc.

--------------------

The last experiment that I will discuss caused quite a hubbub. A scientist working for the NCI wanted to discover if there was any chromosomal marker or hint of homosexuality. Doing a lot of background work, he surmised that homosexuality is predominantly maternal (a discontinuous distribution much to the surprise of the researchers) and he proceeded to look. After a while he did find one chromosome that he believed was a "homosexual" gene.. xq22..23.. shit, forget. But anyways, it caused quite a sensation with the media going ape shit over it and spouting a lot of garbage to the yokels who barely know what DNA is.

However, once again.. a lot of questions come into play.. sampling size, precision (it was done a while ago), percentage, etc..

--------------------

In conclusion.. I think homosexuality is probably a combination of both genetics and environment like everything else in this world.

[CrimsonRaine]

Hm. =) Nice reports.

And I especially like the word "cocksure." I'll be sure to find that to use in some random sentence I'll say tomorrow.

Crimson Raine

[SyntaxVorlon]

<Snip>

There was also an experiment done during the 70's that was trying to find if sexuality, not just one's preference but one's personal sexuality, is based on environment. The scientist in charge, jewel or money can't remember, it was on Frontline a while back, attempted to fake the reports of its success. It was a failure in that they both could not raise a boy as a girl, and that they seriously messed up the life a human being in the process.

It has been found that the hypothamus, which TTSD just mentioned, is also half as small in women than it is in men. This means there is more than a corrolation in genetics between sexual preference, but ones GENDER. In other words that little bit of tissue determines the key difference between women and men, homosexuals and heterosexuals. That's it.

The size in the hypothalmus or the difference in sizes means that there may be a spectrum of sizes. So a better idea of ones personality could be found by using the size of their hypothalmus instead of their astral sign, which would considerably lengthen pickup lines.

[Trytostaydead]

Yup, that is correct Syntax. The hypothalamus is smaller in women. However, the problem remained that the experiment done of the bodies of homosexual versus heterosexual males was flawed and I'll be interested to see if there's a newer report out there that corrects for a larger sampling size, less variables in said samples, a more consistent means of measurement, and of course a more accurate record of sexuality.

A neurosurgeon who studied the first books from the Germans also told me an interesting story about homosexuality that the Germans believed there was a region I believe also in the hypothalamus that once ablated could alter a persons sexuality. Of course, one wonders HOW they got those data and I doubt EVER those experiments will get tested again.. but still.. another interesting tidbit to bring up to the coffee table.

[Darth Gojira]

There wasn't only one society in history that had homosexuality. MOST did. The Middle East was FILLED with it. Despite all the gay bashing in the Bible, I can name one VERY important figure who was gay. King David. In those days, homosexuality was encouraged, it was seen as fit and manly. I wonder what ever happened...

Wasn't he a bisexual though? Remember how he killed Uriah to get at Bathsheba.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Homosexuality is not genetic, and neither is being straight. Your baseline is bisexual--or, essentially, anything that stimulates pleasure. You don't really care, essentially, as a baseline, since you're designed as a social creature and sex-for-pleasure is a bonding act; you'll bond with the others of your group in general and its irrelevant which gender they are. The fact the group has two sexes insures reproduction as the nasty side-effect.. Oops. Bad side of being hunter-gatherers; no birth-control yet.

I have a book by Lesley Rogers, I believe, which addresses some of the issues brought up in this thread regarding genetic determinism in sexuality; I'll have to go dig it up tonight. *sigh*

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Not to defend an argument I don't actually subscribe to, but diabetes hasn't been bred out because it's quite possible to breed before (or after) your diabetes manifests itself. The premature death of a diabetic is irrelevant from a standpoint of evolutionary suitability if he or she can successfully reproduce first.

As for homosexuality, it is not "bred out" because it is not a distinct characteristic. It is merely one end of a continuous spectrum. The notion of a completely straight man is unrealistic; the "straightness" of a heterosexual is probably exaggerated by social conditioning. Put enough heterosexual males together for a long enough period of time with no female companionship (see French foreign legion), and you will find that straight men can be a little more flexible than expected.

If we imagine that people can be 90% hetero and 10% homo or 60% hetero and 40% homo etc., it's not hard to see how homosexuals could persist in society despite not breeding. They are simply sitting slightly outside the normal range of a continuously variable characteristic.

My problem with genetics addressing homosexuality--indeed, with genetics determining much of anything in the history of human behaviour--is that we have so many incidences of things that don't make sense to the theory. The biggest, of course, is the Greeks, for homosexuality. Their entire culture practiced male homosexuality, or more precisely bi-sexuality, on a very large scale--indeed, it was the accepted norm, and you have to look pretty hard to find evidence of straight people; there's good supporting evidence, even that women were involved in homosexual activities relating to religious ceremonies, so the entire society was oriented around same-sex contact..

And of course a similiar thing occurs with the Zulus, where a variety of homosexual practices occured inside the impis before the warriors married. Many of these were not anal sex--some were--but definitely male-on-male stimulation was the case there as well. So we have two totally seperated cultures doing this, and I can probably drag up other examples (off the top of my head, I can think of the example of women in feudal Japan being encouraged to get involved in relations with each other while their husbands were on campaign, so that they would not commit adultry with other men, thus clouding the inheiritance lines, but I'm not sure how common that was)..

It's not an abberation, then. Something in culture either supports or suppresses homosexual--more precisely, bisexual--instincts which exist as a potential for essentially every single member of the human race. I'd suggest that the existence, then, of homosexuals in more hostile cultures is an individual reaction to personal events or influences that may cause a "reaction" against the prevailing culture if you will, or a reaction on a small scale against some consequence of that prevailing culture.

This may seem at first to have a negative impact on homosexuality--suggesting that it is a mutable thing--but ultimately, I would doubt it, as it would also mean that being straight is mutable, and we're all ultimately bisexual, a condition for which the world seems creakingly headed towards the tolerance of.

[Setzer]

I always thought it cam naturally to those who were homosexual. I don't approve of it, but I'm not going to go on a self-righteous tirade over it.

[Sobbastchianno]

Homosexuality is not genetic, and neither is being straight. Your baseline is bisexual--or, essentially, anything that stimulates pleasure. You don't really care, essentially, as a baseline, since you're designed as a social creature and sex-for-pleasure is a bonding act; you'll bond with the others of your group in general and its irrelevant which gender they are. The fact the group has two sexes insures reproduction as the nasty side-effect.. Oops. Bad side of being hunter-gatherers; no birth-control yet.

I have a book by Lesley Rogers, I believe, which addresses some of the issues brought up in this thread regarding genetic determinism in sexuality; I'll have to go dig it up tonight. *sigh*

I understand the premise you are going under, and I am loathe to disagree with you. I am an identical twin, and have participated in studies done by the Kinsey Institute through the University of Minnesota. They did a study based both on twins rasied together and those raised apart. The results were the same. For identicals, there is a 55% chance that both twins will be of the same orientation, for fraternals, about 25% and for non-twin siblings, about 8%. Which actually suggests that there is a genetic component as well as an in utero hormonal component going on prior to birth, and also a few things after birth that all play a part in the determination of sexual orientation. I do believe, however, that push come to shove, all humans are essentially bisexual insofar as they are able to receive pleasure no matter what the source.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I understand the premise you are going under, and I am loathe to disagree with you. I am an identical twin, and have participated in studies done by the Kinsey Institute through the University of Minnesota. They did a study based both on twins rasied together and those raised apart. The results were the same. For identicals, there is a 55% chance that both twins will be of the same orientation, for fraternals, about 25% and for non-twin siblings, about 8%. Which actually suggests that there is a genetic component as well as an in utero hormonal component going on prior to birth, and also a few things after birth that all play a part in the determination of sexual orientation. I do believe, however, that push come to shove, all humans are essentially bisexual insofar as they are able to receive pleasure no matter what the source.

I'm leery of twin studies suggesting a genetic component precisely because of the utero hormonal component, which seems the more logical conclusion to determine from correlations occuring in them.

[Sobbastchianno]

I understand the premise you are going under, and I am loathe to disagree with you. I am an identical twin, and have participated in studies done by the Kinsey Institute through the University of Minnesota. They did a study based both on twins rasied together and those raised apart. The results were the same. For identicals, there is a 55% chance that both twins will be of the same orientation, for fraternals, about 25% and for non-twin siblings, about 8%. Which actually suggests that there is a genetic component as well as an in utero hormonal component going on prior to birth, and also a few things after birth that all play a part in the determination of sexual orientation. I do believe, however, that push come to shove, all humans are essentially bisexual insofar as they are able to receive pleasure no matter what the source.

I'm leery of twin studies suggesting a genetic component precisely because of the utero hormonal component, which seems the more logical conclusion to determine from correlations occuring in them.

Why does that seem any more logical than genetics? Afterall, blue eyes and lefthandedness (though single gene traits) are not determined by maternal hormones. In fact, genes ARE the blueprints for who we are. I think that you are looking at sexual orientation as a "condition." You can be leery all you want. The studies, though not conclusive at this time, are certainly pointing more toward genes than anything else.

[Sobbastchianno]

I understand the premise you are going under, and I am loathe to disagree with you. I am an identical twin, and have participated in studies done by the Kinsey Institute through the University of Minnesota. They did a study based both on twins rasied together and those raised apart. The results were the same. For identicals, there is a 55% chance that both twins will be of the same orientation, for fraternals, about 25% and for non-twin siblings, about 8%. Which actually suggests that there is a genetic component as well as an in utero hormonal component going on prior to birth, and also a few things after birth that all play a part in the determination of sexual orientation. I do believe, however, that push come to shove, all humans are essentially bisexual insofar as they are able to receive pleasure no matter what the source.

I'm leery of twin studies suggesting a genetic component precisely because of the utero hormonal component, which seems the more logical conclusion to determine from correlations occuring in them.

Why does that seem any more logical than genetics? Afterall, blue eyes and lefthandedness (though single gene traits) are not determined by maternal hormones. In fact, genes ARE the blueprints for who we are. I think that you are looking at sexual orientation as a "condition." You can be leery all you want. The studies, though not conclusive at this time, are certainly pointing more toward genes than anything else.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Why does that seem any more logical than genetics? Afterall, blue eyes and lefthandedness (though single gene traits) are not determined by maternal hormones. In fact, genes ARE the blueprints for who we are.

They're the "blueprints" for our physical makeup. You cannot automatically translate that into saying they dictate behaviour--it's the difference between hardware and software, so to speak.

I think that you are looking at sexual orientation as a "condition."

I'm not sure I'd call it that; especially since we don't know about the psychological influence (and psychology, in particular, is a field where laughable levels of inaccuracy or speculation are allowed).

You can be leery all you want. The studies, though not conclusive at this time, are certainly pointing more toward genes than anything else.

I disagree on that, and will get back to you on it.. Hrmm. Later today. My apologies.

[Sobbastchianno]

Dutchess Stated

They're the "blueprints" for our physical makeup. You cannot automatically translate that into saying they dictate behaviour--it's the difference between hardware and software, so to speak.

Dutchess, what makes you think that sexuality isn't hardwired, which would be a physical state of being, just like the wiring in a house, so to speak?

I am a homosexual male and I can choose to have sex with a female, absolutely. THAT is behavior. What I cannot choose is how unnatural the whole act would feel. What I cannot choose is the fact I would have to fantasize about a man to achieve or maintain an erection. That is just a fact of my life. Behaviour is a choice, and I choose to behave in the manner that feels natural to me, and that means sexual relations with men are a part of my life. My actual hope is to fine ONE man with whom to build a life.

The degree of love I feel for the person does not enter into whether or not the sex feels natural. I have deeply loved women in my life, but I have never been sexually attracted to any female, ever. The only woman who would have a hope of "making me straight" would be Jacklyn Smith, and even then it would just be an act. I am WIRED to be a male attracted to men. Even before I knew what it all meant, I felt that way.

During the 1950s they did all sorts of nasty hormonal, surgical, and electroshock experiments on gays and lesbians trying to change their sexual orientation. NONE were successful in doing anything but making the experiment subject feel inadequate and somehow less than human. If hormones and psychological environment were truly all there was to it, then working with both of those, homosexuals could be converted, but experiments have shown that they can't.

And as long as we are on the subject of psychological environment, I was raised in a strict, Orthodox Jewish household. I was raised that it is wrong to be homosexual or if you are, it is wrong to act on it. My parents would have loved nothing better than to see me marry a woman and have children. Two of my older brothers, who are gay, and one of my older sisters, who is a lesbian, went the marriage and children route. They were miserable and all are now divorced, out of the closet, and their children and ex spouses are all very supportive. I didn't go that route. I was the first in my family to ever state that I am a homosexual. There were others in the family at the time, but up until then, they were "spinsters" or "confirmed bachelors." Nice euphamisms, hey? I only know this much because many of them started coming out after the dust settled from my announcement.

No, the majority of people are not homosexual, however, there are more who are homosexual (by estimates) than there are who are left handed people (10% homosexual to 8% left-handed). It used to be said that handedness was a behaviour, and one that should be corrected, but it has been proven to be genetic. I am left handed myself.

My father was left handed until a overzealous teacher cut the tendons in the back of his left hand to ensure that he never used it for writing again. My mother, also left handed, used to have her hand tied behind her back by her teacher so that she didn't use it. My parents were schooled in the 1930s in Europe. Father in Scotland, mother in Poland.

A couple of interesting factoids, 8% of the general population is left handed, but 55% of the known gay population is left handed. There are also finger-print differences between gays and straights (I will need to dig up the article I read on that, but I can find it).

My point is that many of the things we used to think of as behaviors are actually genetically coded. Our genes dictate when certain hormones are kicked off in our own systems. Genetics is the blueprint as well as the screenplay for our lives.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Dutchess, what makes you think that sexuality isn't hardwired, which would be a physical state of being, just like the wiring in a house, so to speak?

There is some evidence for it. I am, just, honestly, to lazy to go get my supporting source right now. I try not to take these discussions to seriously, though the whole nature-vs-nurture debate is something I am heavily on the side of nurture for if you can tell..

I am a homosexual male and I can choose to have sex with a female, absolutely. THAT is behavior. What I cannot choose is how unnatural the whole act would feel. What I cannot choose is the fact I would have to fantasize about a man to achieve or maintain an erection. That is just a fact of my life. Behaviour is a choice, and I choose to behave in the manner that feels natural to me, and that means sexual relations with men are a part of my life. My actual hope is to fine ONE man with whom to build a life.

And there are not other things which would feel just as unnatural for you, which are clearly behavioural? I'm lesbian myself, and I understand exactly what you're saying. But you must not confuse what is behavioural in the context of one's Free Will, and what's guided by Culture, that grand construct of the Wills of Many interacting on vast levels and influenced by outside factors. Culture defines who we are, quite powerfully, either in relation to, or in opposition to it.

I am saying that there's absolutely no reason you couldn't have been straight under the right circumstances, yes. In fact, there's no reason you couldn't have been an Islamic fundamentalist if you were born in the KSA; you probably would have been (or a Mormon fundamentalist if born in Utah).

The degree of love I feel for the person does not enter into whether or not the sex feels natural. I have deeply loved women in my life, but I have never been sexually attracted to any female, ever. The only woman who would have a hope of "making me straight" would be Jacklyn Smith, and even then it would just be an act. I am WIRED to be a male attracted to men. Even before I knew what it all meant, I felt that way.

During the 1950s they did all sorts of nasty hormonal, surgical, and electroshock experiments on gays and lesbians trying to change their sexual orientation. NONE were successful in doing anything but making the experiment subject feel inadequate and somehow less than human. If hormones and psychological environment were truly all there was to it, then working with both of those, homosexuals could be converted, but experiments have shown that they can't.

Psychology is a quack-science and I'd be quite amused if it could influence something as fundamental as the sexual drive--even an imprint on it. But of course none of the more extreme tortures worked. They were precisely that--torture, effectively, which in general works in the process of gaining information by getting a confession (usually false) and then disposing of or releasing the victim. In scientific experimentation your victims will be undergoing a bit to much rigeur for that, fortunately, and the poor doctors will be finding no change.

And as long as we are on the subject of psychological environment, I was raised in a strict, Orthodox Jewish household. I was raised that it is wrong to be homosexual or if you are, it is wrong to act on it.

I was raised by Irish Catholic parents who didn't speak to me for several years--So one might say I'm aware of the situation, and can offer my sympathy, even.

But again I must emphasize the principle of reaction. Things occur which make one deviate (Why must be pervert(hah!) words from their original meanings? Deviate simply means a shift!) from the societal norms.. Reactions! Grand processes twist through society and tear apart normal humans like nothing: We are mites in a malaestrom of culture, each and every one of us struggling to survive as we might. And sometimes our minds come up with odd ways of doing so--So much the better! Glory to the uniqueness of our race.

No, the majority of people are not homosexual, however, there are more who are homosexual (by estimates) than there are who are left handed people (10% homosexual to 8% left-handed).

The 10% homosexual figure is from studies of prison; in the outside world we know the figure is closer to 3%, or at least it's been estimated at 3%. I've heard figures as high as 20%--I'm not sure for what, though. Maybe that includes people with bisexual tendencies? Surely it must, there seems so many now.. Or perhaps also from prison. Well, I'll discount that for now.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say here is--look at the discrepency. Where do the other 7% come from? Are gays genetically prone to be criminals, too? Or is it just that some people are opportunistically homosexual? And this, of course, is because the baseline for humanity is bisexual to begin with, something which makes perfect sense. You're gay, of course. Pat Robertson is straight, for that matter. Cultural influences on the mind are awesomely hard things to change--people have regularly died for it in ridiculously (and often literally!) suicidal ways--which is not bad, nor is culture as a diverse thing in and of itself. But our genetic baseline, unaffected by the influence of the outside--that's bisexual. Or, more precisely, an uncaring "if it feels good, do it, and anything that provides stimulation feels good." That's what I'm arguing.

A couple of interesting factoids, 8% of the general population is left handed, but 55% of the known gay population is left handed.

This figure really suggests nothing, since as stated, it's the known gay population. An interesting possibility may be that parents who were receptive enough to let their children use their left hand also would be receptive about having a homosexual child (considering the rather awesome stigma attached with left-handedness you just outlined rather succinctly, the idea of equating the two in severity is not so far-fetched).

My point is that many of the things we used to think of as behaviors are actually genetically coded. Our genes dictate when certain hormones are kicked off in our own systems. Genetics is the blueprint as well as the screenplay for our lives.

I suppose I'll have to go get the book now.

[Sobbastchianno]

Dutchess,

Not all studies that show a 10% figure for the gay population were done in prison. Too blanket a statement, my friend.

One point I think that you are totally overlooking is that while yes, we as a society are more "tolerant" of differences than we used to be, even in times when homosexuality was punishable by DEATH, it was still "practiced" (for lack of a better term). It is an intrinsic part of the human condition (and I did use the word "condition" intentionally).

I don't come down on the side of nurtuer, at least as the models are shown to me thus far, because I didn't have an overbearing mother or absent father. My parents were both very supportive, loving and involved in their children's lives. Not at all the typical model for "nurturing" a child to be homosexual.

I lost both by the time I was 21, but I am one of the YOUNGER homosexuals in my family. My sister, Darrylle, who is 49, is the oldest of the gay children. The youngest, my twin brother, would have been 38. In our family, which has been part of four studies on the subject of genetics, specifically where it relates to sexual orientation, we have tried to find a pattern as to why the five of us who are gay, are the way we are (my parents had 12 children total, same marriage, no divorce). We are in positions 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10 (with 9 and 10 being twins) in the family, meaning 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 11, and 12 are all heterosexual. So, pattern isn't it, and generation isn't it either. There are 21.5 years between Child 1 (male) and Child 12 (male). All of us are left handed, and I mean all 12 of us children are left handed (both parents are left handed, which is a single gene pair and requires a homozygous pair because it is a recessive trait, hence all 12 children would turn out to be left handed).

Of course, it is obvious that not all traits are single gene pair traits (though handedness and eye color are). It is all very complicated, but I honestly believe it is definitely more nature than nurture, I really do. Evidence is pointing more and more to that. Even when researchers start mentioning "environment" they are talking in-utero. They too realize that the nurture arguments of old don't hold the water they were once thought to hold.

PS - as for the handedness, by the time any of us started school, my parents realized what was done to them was wrong and made sure that none of it happened to thier children.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Identical twins are always the same sex, whereas nonidentical twins can be either the same sex or opposite sexes. In theory, a characteristic (physical or behavioral) that is similar in monozygotic twins and different, or not so similar, in dizygotic twins is considered to be inherited. But this line of reasoning denies the strong possibility that, becuase they look alike, identical twins are more likely than nonidentical twins to be treated similarly.

(Note: especially on a psychological/subconscious level.)

To allow for this possibility, it is better to study identical twins that have been separated at birth and raised apart. This way, shared behavioral characteristics are less likely to have resulted from the fact that the twins were raised in the same way. Nevertheless, being raised apart does not mean that all similarities in experience and learning are removed. The physical characteristics of a person (such as height or hair color) have a large effect on how he or she is treated by others. Because identical twins who are reared apart retain many similarities in appearance, at least some of the ways in which they are raised and reacted to by others might be the same despite their separation. As a result, both twins would be expected to develop some of the same patterns of behavior even though they were separated at birth. This would not deny a role for genes in the process--genetic influences would have determined the similarities in physical appearence--but it makes the possibility of special genes for behaving in particular ways less likely. Furthermore, it is unlikely that twins separated at birth are raised in entirely different environments because most adoption agencies atrive to place twins in families of equivlant social and economic status, and rarely are they placed in families of different cultures or religions.

Excerpts from page 59 Sexing the Brain by Lesley Rogers.

They outline some of my objections to twins--no offensive intended!--as a study group. A note, though, from further along:

I know of only one study of lesbianism in twins who were reared apart. Although the study was limited to only four pairs of identical twins, none of the four pairs showed the same sexual preference.(23)

(pg.62)

23. E.D. Eckert, T.J. Bouchard, J. Bohlen, and L.L. Heston, "Homosexuality in Monozygotic Twins Reared Apart," British Journal of Psychiatry 14 (1986): 421-25.

Naturally such a study is such a small sample as to be worthless. So are all of the others, honestly--you don't have the whole population available to sample from (closeted people, after all), and to compound that, most of the researchers approach things by advertising to a specific targeted population, open and active homosexuals. That's going to skew the results. Perhaps an extrovert gene has been discovered..?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Dutchess,

Not all studies that show a 10% figure for the gay population were done in prison. Too blanket a statement, my friend.

Forgive me; I'm used to debating on conservative boards where I accept the 3% figure as a matter of course and then make it a matter of irrelevancy, too. 3-4% probably is, however, more accurate IMO for people who are actually homosexual. I would not be surprised with 20% bisexual OTOH, but then I think this really might depend on how one defines the two terms...

One point I think that you are totally overlooking is that while yes, we as a society are more "tolerant" of differences than we used to be, even in times when homosexuality was punishable by DEATH, it was still "practiced" (for lack of a better term).

Well, of course it was. A moment..

It is an intrinsic part of the human condition (and I did use the word "condition" intentionally).

Exactly! Of course it is! I'm not saying anything else, you understand: If everything is inherently bisexual to begin with, then you have the potential to sleep with men or women, yes? So it is an intrinsic part of you.

But circumstances shift this. Things drive the most mad and ridiculous things--and I say that in all wonderful and lonely and crazy glory of passion and the occasional self-destruction it can bring. With the stars as my witness, there are more varieties of humanity than there are of the heavens and the earth.. Existing, in part, because of our own nature, driven by the example of caprice and whim that strives from our Will; or tempered, or yet again inflamed, but in other pursuits, by more desperate emotions of the heart!

Neutral in the beginning, we are, but whipped into a tempest by every little experience of life until the torrent overtakes us. And of course, even under the threat of death, we might find things that drive us into an act, or a desire, that would make us willingly risk that death. Who would not? Do we think love and passion so cheap these days that the idea of cultural influence, might be disposed, simply because some homosexuals yet preserved in an age when they lived under threat of death? These emotions once launched armadas!

I don't come down on the side of nurtuer, at least as the models are shown to me thus far, because I didn't have an overbearing mother or absent father. My parents were both very supportive, loving and involved in their children's lives. Not at all the typical model for "nurturing" a child to be homosexual.

I would not attempt a model to explain how one would nurture a child to be homosexual--I just meant the debate in terms of, well, very basic terms. I mean that, in general, I attribute things to culture (Instead of genetics, race, etc).

It is all very complicated, but I honestly believe it is definitely more nature than nurture, I really do. Evidence is pointing more and more to that. Even when researchers start mentioning "environment" they are talking in-utero.

And I definitely think it is primarily the post-utero enviroment.

They too realize that the nurture arguments of old don't hold the water they were once thought to hold.

Their own arguments are based on the reduction of human behaviour to a series of processes little more complex than flicking a light switch on and off, which IMO is excessive. Genetic arguments are frought with peril and have had little in the way of a serious vetting against the fullness of historical human behaviour; in some cases, they lack measure against a rational application of logic.