Really "born that way"?

[Kanaric]

So the modern consensus with most people who believe in science is that gay people are born to be gay. I used to think that this would be true but i've been thinking that this possibly is not.

If sexual attractiveness is genetic then since almost world wide light skinned thin women are considered the most attractive is that genetic? Is "evolution" or genes telling us that kind of woman is the preferred mate? What about the small number of people who like fat women? Do they have some kind of genetics that tell them that they must like that kind of person? What about pedophiles or people with other fetishes? I don't understand why these must be some kind of a compairson to nature or genetics to validate gay people within liberals. In the ancient past being with the same gender in cultures didn't matter and people still went with women as well as men. It was socially acceptable so that is simply what people did. It seems that no study can conclusively suggest that it is absolutely genetic but people jump on it as fact pretty much leading to invalidation of gays in the eyes of people who hate them. Similar to that climate change lying fiasco convincing the ignorants that because a small group of scientists changed some information and were caught that it all must be a lie completely validating their wrong position.

Another thing that harms peoples arguments that it is "natural" behavior is that the animals do it. Whenever gay penguins or whatever is brought up to try and force bigots to accept gays. The common response I hear from these people is "are we animals should we be doing everything animals do?". If you think about that their argument is kind of right, animals kill eachother, eat their young, wallow in their feces, etc. The truth is we shouldn't behave like animals and such "well if animals do it we should be able to" only harms the position and is absolutely besides the point.

My opinion is it doesn't matter, that this is a moot point as if its genetic or psychological or even a choice that people should be allowed to do what they want sexually. If one person can be into fat women, another person into bondage, why can't someone be into men? This is a free society we don't need flimsy genetic hypothesis natural observations in animals to validate someones non harmful behavior.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Given the general attitude towards homosexuals even in the most tolerant of places, why would anyone choose to be gay? If sexuality is a choice, why don't more people choose not to be straight?

[Lord Romanus III]

If sexual attractiveness is genetic then since almost world wide light skinned thin women are considered the most attractive is that genetic? Is "evolution" or genes telling us that kind of woman is the preferred mate? What about the small number of people who like fat women? Do they have some kind of genetics that tell them that they must like that kind of person? What about pedophiles or people with other fetishes?

I've yet to see your first claim validated. You can use the phrase 'a lot of people', but you're honestly going to have to post a world-wide statistic to back up the idea of those women being the most attractive. A person's sexual preference or their sexuality isn't just determined by one factor. Cultural factors, personal factors, evolutionary factors, and societal factors would come into play here. That is my opinion and I'll defend it if you disagree or would like me to elaborate further.

I don't understand why these must be some kind of a compairson to nature or genetics to validate gay people within liberals. In the ancient past being with the same gender in cultures didn't matter and people still went with women as well as men. It was socially acceptable so that is simply what people did. It seems that no study can conclusively suggest that it is absolutely genetic but people jump on it as fact pretty much leading to invalidation of gays in the eyes of people who hate them. Similar to that climate change lying fiasco convincing the ignorants that because a small group of scientists changed some information and were caught that it all must be a lie completely validating their wrong position.

I'm just going to point out that you've made a political statement that could've been avoided to keep the debate here without partisan sides. I would assume that people would like to cling to the genetic argument because most of the people who dislike homosexuals are religious and religion obviously does not meet the standards to which science is held.

Another thing that harms peoples arguments that it is "natural" behavior is that the animals do it. Whenever gay penguins or whatever is brought up to try and force bigots to accept gays. The common response I hear from these people is "are we animals should we be doing everything animals do?". If you think about that their argument is kind of right, animals kill eachother, eat their young, wallow in their feces, etc. The truth is we shouldn't behave like animals and such "well if animals do it we should be able to" only harms the position and is absolutely besides the point.

Just to make a point: we are animals. We do behave like animals in many cases and having superior cognitive abilities doesn't necessarily mean that we always follow that route, nor do we use our cognitive ability to do what is best for our species and the rest of the earth.

Other species having 'gays' amongst themselves is something that we can observe amongst other species and I believe the point is that it isn't a phenomenon amongst just humans. The real question in point is if homosexuality amongst humans and other species is a genetic malfunction and if it is, do we care to do anything about it? Here our cognitive abilities come in and assert that since homosexuals don't hurt anyone that we should let them be and mind our own business. After all, I've yet to meet a homosexual who can't do something that I can because of their sexuality.

it's possible that people who feels they are gay actually contain dangerous gene to be passed on (like inheritable fatal degradations, or some faulty genetic splicings), being gay is the way nature protect the species as a whole by throwing some unsalvageable specimens out of the gene pool

Are you trying to say that homosexuals are the product of having an 'inheritable fatal degradation', as you so put it? Because that makes no sense.

Given the general attitude towards homosexuals even in the most tolerant of places, why would anyone choose to be gay? If sexuality is a choice, why don't more people choose not to be straight?

This question needs to be addressed by those who postulate that it is a choice.

[TheDarkKnight]

Given the general attitude towards homosexuals even in the most tolerant of places, why would anyone choose to be gay? If sexuality is a choice, why don't more people choose not to be straight?

That is how I feel too. No one would choose to be discriminated against.

Plus, a lot of gay men are quite attractive, and could probably get any woman they want in bed with them. Why would they choose to instead go after other men?

[removeduser_4536284751384]

As you point out I don't think there is sufficient evidence to suggest homosexuals are "born that way". I don't think anyone has scientifically claimed they are either. They could be born that way genetically or developmentally, they could be born with the capacity to be that way which is "activated" after birth, or it could solely develop after birth. Or it could be any of these depending on the individual. We have no evidence to suggest any of these hypotheses.

Quite counter-intuitively, causing homosexuality in some circumstances might even be an evolutionary stable strategy for a gene. Some people being gay may cause that gene in other non-gay people to be more likely to be passed on, for whatever reason.

[Himster]

Well the major difference between sexuality now and sexuality in ancient times is romance. You cite the fact that homosexuals would have their love partners, but they would also marry a member of the opposite sex, for political, social, economic reasons etc. not the case anymore. Modern marriage is based on romance now, you love who you marry these days, rather than the obligatory duty for procreation and familial "honour".

Anyway, there is a genetic pre-disposition towards sexuality that is imbued at/before birth, but there are other influences at puberty and later on in life, trauma can also affect your sexuality, chronic- depression and self-loathing can cause one to "mis-read" their sexuality, there's also the basic need for companionship can skew one's perception of their sexuality as can be seen in prisons, gender-specific boarding schools and China. There are not only biological factors that determine one's sexuality.

Of course none of that actually means that your sexuality can be chosen, you can't choose your sexuality in the same way you can't choose your sense of humour.

[Claudius Gothicus]

There's 2 separate things:

-The ''effeminate role'' that many gaymen assume, which is socially derived.

-The actual attraction for other men, which is derived from a hormonal imbalance that seems to fully develop in puberty and is conditioned by a genetic stance which is randomly triggered by certain aspects of early socialization.

We can conclude that none chooses to be gay, but many certainly embrace the effeminate ''behavior'' out of self-identification within a community or group. How much of individual agency exists in such a ''cultural embracement'' is a matter of almost philosophical perspective.

[Kitsunegari]

It's difficult to say with any degree of certainty, but as noted above, hormonal imbalances and such can be considered at least partially a culprit. Also interesting to note that the second son and those after him are more likely to be "gay" than the first.

[Don in the North]

its more likely people can be born with predispositions towards bisexuality as well as homosexuality, which would give to some viewing the situation externally; the illusion of 'choice' in the matter. maybe, for those types of people, choice really does exist because they can effectively swing for both sides of the fence, but such a choice could not exist for homo or hetero-sexuals.

as for the 'light skinned' women being most attractive comment, i couldnt disagree further.
sure there are alot of beautiful 'white' women, but there are also alot of beautiful 'black' and 'asian' women as well.
generalization achieves nothing but further division, and we should be focusing on what we have in common rather than what we havent.
for example, we all bleed red.

[Spike]

it's possible that people who feels they are gay actually contain dangerous gene to be passed on (like inheritable fatal degradations, or some faulty genetic splicings), being gay is the way nature protect the species as a whole by throwing some unsalvageable specimens out of the gene pool

[z3n]

it's possible that people who feels they are gay actually contain dangerous gene to be passed on (like inheritable fatal degradations, or some faulty genetic splicings), being gay is the way nature protect the species as a whole by throwing some unsalvageable specimens out of the gene pool

That's certainly an interesting idea.

A sub-concious instinct is certainly a plausible idea. We don't know much about our sub-concious but one of things we do know is that our sub-concious makes decisions about mating based on it's evaluation of another's traits. Why wouldn't it make decisions based on our own traits and it's own evaluation of them?

[Claudius Gothicus]

Our perception of women being ''beautiful'' or ''ugly'' is most likely determined by cultural factors, but it's undeniable that there's other reasons than pure cultural relativity in the middle as well:

Send a white chick to a country like Bolivia or some African backwater where you, a western male, would most likely say ''all women are ugly'' and you most likely will find that said ''white chick'' has a lot of attention of the local male audience. Damn it happens to my GF every time she travels to Peru, and she's not even white in the ''European sense'', she's mixed.

This is generated by a couple of things that I believe are ingrained in culture:

-Diet, damn the people in those backwater ''places of ugly people'' have a terrible diet, be it for culture(like overconsumption of fats and rice) or simple poverty they have a diet that's poor in protein and vitamins, which damages the teeth, the skin and of course generates weight imbalances.

-The weight of ''fashion symbolism'', those countries do not put so much weight in the individual when bombarding him or her with the ''cultural representations of fashion'': what it's to be beautiful, why it's important and how to do it. So basically the individual dresses and arranges her/himself in accordance to tradition or simple local acceptance.
This derives into ''fashion aberrations'' like the clothing code of Islamic countries where women are basically one big sheet with legs, and I'm not even going to tell you about the disasters one can see in Bolivian or Peruvian cholas. To explain it easily, clothing in those places is most certainly determined by traditional motivations in opposition to ''fashion arranged'' values, this creates a huge contradiction with those of us who are bombarded or ''exposed'' to the western system where fashion is a value in itself and not a slave of tradition.

[trance]

Gee.

Homosexuality is NOT something you are born with.
Sexual attractiveness is influenced by hereditary means which however are second to upper functions, association and norms, as made clear by the first statement in this post.

Biopsychosocial. Yeee. (Also it's all psychological, no matter the causation)

Oh and with risk of being anal:

. After all, I've yet to meet a homosexual who can't do something that I can because of their sexuality.

Children .

Sorry but I just couldn't let that one slip away

[Lord Romanus III]

Children .

Sorry but I just couldn't let that one slip away

Aside from the rest that is derp, I'll leave this right here for you: I can't make a child on my own. I was speaking in terms of just the single individual. Enjoy

[Phier]

If sexual attractiveness is genetic then since almost world wide light skinned thin women are considered the most attractive is that genetic? Is "evolution" or genes telling us that kind of woman is the preferred mate? What about the small number of people who like fat women? Do they have some kind of genetics that tell them that they must like that kind of person? What about pedophiles or people with other fetishes? I don't understand why these must be some kind of a compairson to nature or genetics to validate gay people within liberals. In the ancient past being with the same gender in cultures didn't matter and people still went with women as well as men. It was socially acceptable so that is simply what people did. It seems that no study can conclusively suggest that it is absolutely genetic but people jump on it as fact pretty much leading to invalidation of gays in the eyes of people who hate them. Similar to that climate change lying fiasco convincing the ignorants that because a small group of scientists changed some information and were caught that it all must be a lie completely validating their wrong position.

We describe six pairs of monozygotic twins, in which at least one member of five pairs were homosexual, and one of the remaining pair was bisexual, from a series of 55 pairs, reared apart from infancy; all the female pairs were discordant for homosexual behaviour. This and other evidence suggest that female homosexuality may be an acquired trait. One male pair was concordant for homosexuality, while the other was not clearly concordant or discordant; this suggests that male homosexuality may be associated with a complex interaction, in which genes play some part.

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/148/4/421.short
Basically identical twins, reared apart. Five of the 6 were homosexual. That one was bisexual.

Lets not play the choice game, one doesn't choose to be a pervert by most societies norms, at least not at the % they are found in society.

[Sphere]

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/148/4/421.short
Basically identical twins, reared apart. Five of the 6 were homosexual. That one was bisexual.

Lets not play the choice game, one doesn't choose to be a pervert by most societies norms, at least not at the % they are found in society.

^There is some rather compelling circumstancial evidence that genetics do play an important role, if not the central role in homosexuality, but nothing definitive as of yet.

But just from an anecdotal perspective, do you think that we are all the same and it is just that some guys "choose" not to have strong sexual desires towards women during puberty? It is very hard for me to believe that anyone could simply ignore or supress the typical hormone induced -anything-resembling-a-vagina urges associated with male puberty.

[Morbius Sire]

Well, there are many factor in the sexual preferences of a person [the way i see it]:
Some may include genetics [possible hormonal balance or chemical minor balance in the brain spot specific for sexuality]
But upbringing is a big factor, IMO.

I am certain that parents are also a major factor, especially if the father or mother are abusive, then child might be psychologically repulsed by that specific gender.
Example: if a mother is abusive/ill-mannered towards her young son, then it is highly probably that the son will be psychologically repulsed or discouraged from interacting with women; which would create a homosexual preference.

[Phier]

Example: if a mother is abusive/ill-mannered towards her young son, then it is highly probably that the son will be psychologically repulsed or discouraged from interacting with women; which would create a homosexual preference.

While Freud was wrong on this his observation was not. He thought that an overly protective mother and a distant father would contribute to homosexuality. What he didn't take into account that an effeminate boy would be protected more by his mother and rejected by his father. It was the effect not the cause.

Interestingly the groups which tend to focus on the mother causing homosexuality tend to be those who think they can 'cure' it or fathers rights groups for custody battles. What I'm saying is that its groups who's bias may just be influencing their ideas.

[frozenprince]

Sexuality is not a conscious choice. Its a broad mixture of genetics and environment, and its hard wired. Saying its ABSOLUTELY genetic is wrong, but saying genetics play no part is also wrong.

[Morbius Sire]

While Freud was wrong on this his observation was not. He thought that an overly protective mother and a distant father would contribute to homosexuality. What he didn't take into account that an effeminate boy would be protected more by his mother and rejected by his father. It was the effect not the cause.

Interestingly the groups which tend to focus on the mother causing homosexuality tend to be those who think they can 'cure' it or fathers rights groups for custody battles. What I'm saying is that its groups who's bias may just be influencing their ideas.

I mentioned that example because one of my ex-friends had a similar experience and now he's bi or gay..not exactly sure [though,it was the first thing that came to mind when i read this thread.]

But ya, what you're saying makes sense.