Homosexuality: Biologically Determined?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Or maybe (I was asking you to answer for you, btw) 'what' is the question. First what, then how, then why, for the metaphysically inclined.

OK. So what is sex? I know it's in the brain -- but what is it?

Please can you use Bettie Page as an example.

For what it's worth, she just died.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/12/bettie.page.obit/index.html

Originally posted by Palynka
I know epi is a Christian, but I don't know his position on homosexuality nor his motives for asking this.

Regardless, I think that the fact he wants to look at evidence is by itself a positive step. I don't presume to know what implications he will draw from that evidence.

If you're implying he wants to attack homosexuality, I honestly don't see how it being cultural or genetic makes any difference.

I am a Christian, it is true. But I find it extremely difficult (well nigh impossible actually) to accept the notion that there aren't individuals who are born gay. Certainly there are confused heterosexual people who engage in homosexual behavior. My brother, who is gay, was himself astonished at how many straight men are confused about their sexuality (I remember hearing Rachel Maddow mention something similar about straight women she's met). Undoubtedly, people have the right to sleep with whomever they will; I'm not interested in broaching that subject. Cultural changes may effect the number of people confused about their sexuality; lax taboos, etc., and I understand there is always a conservative backlash against those cultural tendencies. I see this, though, as almost a separate issue altogether. What I want to focus on are those who would be flaming gay in whatever cultural they happened to be born into - that minority of individuals who are not merely "biologically predisposed" to homosexual behavior, but irrevocably homosexual through and through right from the get-go.

My brother, for instance, never liked to play with the toys I liked. He preferred dolls, dress-up games, playing with girls, acting, dancing, role-playing girls and women, etc. Our mom used to award my brother tokens if he would pursue more boy-like activities, all to no avail. His walk, the way he talks, even the way he looks (facial features, etc.) have always been markedly feminine. When he "came out of the closet" after high school, no one was surprised. My brother was just different and there's nothing he or anyone else could have done about it.

I think it's only a matter of time before science proves that certain people are genuinely born gay. I figured the science forum would be a good place to explore the latest research.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
A beneficial novelty.

Let's deal with bisexuality in animals first.

"In some birds, same-sex unions, particularly between males, might have evolved as a parenting strategy to increase the survival of their young. “In black swans, if two males find each other and make a nest, they’ll be very successful at nest making because they are bigger and st ...[text shortened]... seem to be at play there ... We'd have to delve deep into human sexuality in general.)

But I think that with humans things are different. I don't see human homesexualty as just having sex with a same sex partner. I see it as bonding, caring, and all of those male/female aspects of a relationship. And to be honest I think most of those feeling are lacking in most animals and/or aren't as deep as they are in humans. Of course I have no proof of this and I'm just having some educated guesses.

And this is why I think people don't decide on a given day day to be straight, homosexual or bisexual. I think people have very strong biological (lacking a better term) imprint of what their sexuality will be. Once again I don't think that environmental factors aren't to be counted.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Why do you think "anomaly" has negative connotations? In what instance is it usually used in a negative way?

Aside from that, I will gladly apologize for and withdraw the use of the term, if it means we can intelligently discuss this issue.

Of course we can intelligently discuss the issue. 🙂

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anomaly
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anomaly

I think that when most people use the word anomaly it is to convey the meaning expressed in those two links. Namely:
1. a deviation from the common rule, type, arrangement, or form.
2. someone or something anomalous: With his quiet nature, he was an anomaly in his exuberant family.
3. an odd, peculiar, or strange condition, situation, quality, etc.
4. an incongruity or inconsistency.

and
1. Deviation or departure from the normal or common order, form, or rule.
2. One that is peculiar, irregular, abnormal, or difficult to classify

All of these meaning seem to carry a negative connotation to me. Of course it may be that you used the word anomaly in a technical way and it doesn't carry the usual negative weight it carries in everyday conversations.

I didn't mean to be conflicting or anything I was just curious why you'd used a seemingly connoted word to describe homosexuality.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
(Nature is a process).

Please explain. Or post links to relevant information on this.

Originally posted by adam warlock
Of course we can intelligently discuss the issue. 🙂

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anomaly
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anomaly

[i]I think that when most people use the word anomaly it is to convey the meaning expressed in those two links. Namely:
1. a deviation from the common rule, type, arrangement, or form.
2. someone or some ...[text shortened]... thing I was just curious why you'd used a seemingly connoted word to describe homosexuality.

a·nom·a·ly (-nm-l)
n. pl. a·nom·a·lies
1. Deviation or departure from the normal or common order, form, or rule.
2. One that is peculiar, irregular, abnormal, or difficult to classify: "Both men are anomalies: they have . . . likable personalities but each has made his reputation as a heavy" David Pauly.
3. Astronomy The angular deviation, as observed from the sun, of a planet from its perihelion.
So from this definition, is the percentage of gayness in the general population low enough to be defined thus?
3 to 5% is the # normally touted. About 1 in 20 or 1 in 30ish.
I would say yes but it should never be used as a pejorative since most gay people start feeling gay before they even understand what sexuality is like the two year old boy who plays with dolls or the 3 year old girl who likes trucks, that is before there is anything like sexuality in their makeup so orientation clearly comes before sexuality.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I'd like to discuss what evidence there is in support of homosexuality as a biologically and/or environmentally (prenatal) determined anomaly.

_________

I know of two recent articles of import.

(1) http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jun/16/neuroscience.psychology

(2) http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/science/2008/December/Males-of-All-S ...[text shortened]... hape of the brain and the other with the effect pollution may have on the masculinity of males.

I can't claim to have the answer to this question, but it appears to me both gay men and lesbian women are born that way. 😏

Homosexuality has survived many generations of social intolerance.
If it were genetic, surely this gene would have been wiped out by now?

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
Homosexuality has survived many generations of social intolerance.
If it were genetic, surely this gene would have been wiped out by now?

Even if it were genetic - does that make it abnormal? Some things genetic just are what they are, no?

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
If it were genetic, surely this gene would have been wiped out by now?

Do genes care about repression?

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
Homosexuality has survived many generations of social intolerance.
If it were genetic, surely this gene would have been wiped out by now?

Only if there are no evolutionary benefits from the hypothetical homosexual gene, and even then it doesn't necessarily have to be wiped out, genetic diseases aren't wiped out either.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Only if there are no evolutionary benefits from the hypothetical homosexual gene, and even then it doesn't necessarily have to be wiped out, genetic diseases aren't wiped out either.

Genetic diseases that cause infertility at birth aren't often selected
for. Are you saying that it is a latency in genetic behaviour that
leads to the propogation of this peculiarity?

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
Genetic diseases that cause infertility at birth aren't often selected
for. Are you saying that it is a latency in genetic behaviour that
leads to the propogation of this peculiarity?

No, I am saying there might be benefits to the homosexual gene which have nothing to do with the homosexual behaviour itself. Read the whole thread, I have posted a theory here.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
A possible explanation for homosexuality in human males I've read is that the (hypothetical) gene for homosexuality also increases fertility in women. It appears that mothers and maternal aunts of gay men tend to have more children on average.

This is most likely due to the psychological dynamics of large family
groups and that statistically gay men have more aunts...

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
This is most likely due to the psychological dynamics of large family
groups and that statistically gay men have more aunts...

Explain?