Causes for homosexuality?

[John Cuthber]

I can't speak for the OP but I'm sure he had heard about a genetic link to sexuality, since asked about one.

 

 

"Sure, not all sex leads to babies. But it DOES NOT FOLLOW then that not all babies come from sex! Well maybe test tube babies"

Congratulations! you have realised that life is slightly more complicated than

1 cause=1 effect.

Now you need to apply this to the case of human behaviour (which is very complicated).

A single gene cannot, on it's own determine eye colour, (in spite of what you said earlier).

Similarly there is no single "gay gene".

However there are genes related to sexual preference.

As with procreation, there are other factors at work- like contraception or fertility clinics on one hand, or single sex schools on the other.

But, when it comes down to it, there are clearly researched associations between genetics and sexual preferences.

" The plausibility that homosexuality has any genetic origin at all is about equal to the plausibility that the flying spaghetti monster rules the universe. "

OK, explain the correlation please.

Also, why is there more association between sexual preference of identical twins than between fraternal twins?

 

Actually, never mind that, here's a better question.

Do you think a tendency to heterosexuality is genetic?

If not how do animals know whom to mate with?

If there were some impediment to that system would that not be a heritable pro-homosexual trait?

Couldn't a similar thing happen with humans?

[farmboy]

 

 

There isn't any contradiction in my position at all. The plausibility that homosexuality has any genetic origin at all is about equal to the plausibility that the flying spaghetti monster rules the universe. We don't need any proof for that either. . and it sure is convenient to just say for now that "it is too complex for us to understand directly."

 

Are you being serious dude haha, I genuinely think your posts so far could be included in a dictionary under the heading contradictory, and I really don't mean to be rude when I say that... but it is true all the same. I wouldn't normally bother pushing the issue, but you have been a little rude in getting your point across even though you are wrong lol.

 

This was your first post in the thread....

 

 

There has never been any conclusive (or even suggestive) scientific evidence to my knowledge that would imply that homosexuality is triggered

by the existence or lack of a specific gene. It is largely an unexplainable phenomenon...but it has everything to do with environmental conditions

and influences and nothing to do with genes.

 

Now I highlighted the important part (though the whole post makes an argument for your not really knowing what the feck you are talking about lol) and in my original post I said that you had contradicted yourself. How exactly can you read that back and continue to believe that your post is not a contradiction. You state plainly that homosexuality is an unexplainable peheomena which can be explained entirely by environmental factors ( it has everything to do with environmental conditions and influences). That is a contradiction if ever I seen one.

 

Going back to the flying Spaghetti Monster stuff, the simple fact you used that term (in this barely relevant context) made me cringe. The fact you seemed to believe it appropriate made me feel a little bad for laughing. If I had said that ''God creates homosexuals no further info requred'' then yes this comment would have been fine, even a little funny. I didn't say that though. If I had even said that DNA definitely causes homosexuality you might have had some sembelance of a case. I did not say that though. I simply said that it was plausible that DNA (the source of a significant portion of our behaviour) could plausibly be a factor in incidence of homosexuality. The fact that the mechanism is likely to be beyond our understanding does not mean that we should automatically decide that it is something else. That is about as unscientific as it is possible to be.

 

 

 

Also, sexuality is not a spectrum. .this is just your perception. Sexuality is based on emotions. . .and those emotions change from person to person for different environmental reasons, but they are never genetic. Take a minute to think about the implications of what you are proposing: A behavior (homosexuality) is caused by a gene. If this were true, then it would have to follow that there would be genes for every behavior. . like homicidal genes, kleptomania genes, intelligence genes, etc. It just isn't true. . .

 

Again dude, you just simply have absolutely no idea what youn are talking about. You are the only person here dealing in definites, so therefore must have some hefty evidence backing your claims? If not then what you are saying is just poo-poo lol. Again I really do hate to get angry/be rude, but your arguments make no sense. Genetics cannot play a factor in sexuality becuase of the repercussions that might have on people who steal lol? You are starting with a conclusion and looking back and hoping to see the evidence that will support what you think is right. There is no grater ''crime'' in science (lol) but I'll try and respond coherently anyway pal.

 

Firstly sexuality is a spectrum, it doesn't matter that you don't like it's implications, this is what any study into human sexuality has found. Some people like only men, some men a little bit and women lots, others like men lots and tentacle monsters and japanese school girls loads. There are as many sexual preferences in the world as their are people, ranging from one extreme to the opposite. That is a spectrum. No one in their right state of mind would say that emotions do not play a role here, but genetics could very easily be a factor too. I hope you can appreciate how ridiculous it is for you to absolutely insist that genetics cannot be a factor because there is no evidence to support it, whilst touting the alternative with absolute certainty despite its having the same inherent default.

 

Basically you haven't made on reasonable suggestion so far in this thread. If you want to offer an alternative view point then trying adding some actual evidence, don't just insist the hardest that you are right others are wrong/

[SMF]

This is always a fun topic and I would like to learn more from you all who are expressing your opinions. So, as this is a science forum, now is the time to provide some research citations to support your positions. There is quite a bit of research out there. SM

[SamTheSkeptic]

Quite the contrary. You are the one who has absolutely no evidence, yet you promote the "possibility" of genetic components in homosexuality. This is why I brought up the spaghetti monster. . .I could just as easily promote the "possibility" that he exists, despite any falsifiable evidence. Just because you aren't able to understand the analogy doesn't mean it is an invalid one.

 

And please note that it isn't I who needs proof. . I'm not making the claim here. You need proof because you are making the claim that homosexuality has a genetic component.

Don't misconstrue my skepticism as a claim!

 

You state plainly that homosexuality is an unexplainable peheomena which can be explained entirely by environmental factors ( it has everything to do with environmental conditions and influences). That is a contradiction if ever I seen one.

 

Homosexuality certainly does have everything to do with environmental conditions and influences (just like any other human behavior). . but no one knows exactly which conditions/influences are required to produce it. There are plenty of pet theories and hunches, but no sound evidence. Therefore, it is still an 'unexplainable phenomenon' although it can be fully attributed to environmental factors and not genes. No contradiction at all. . nice try though.

 

Going back to the flying Spaghetti Monster stuff, the simple fact you used that term (in this barely relevant context) made me cringe. The fact you seemed to believe it appropriate made me feel a little bad for laughing. If I had said that ''God creates homosexuals no further info requred'' then yes this comment would have been fine, even a little funny. I didn't say that though. If I had even said that DNA definitely causes homosexuality you might have had some sembelance of a case. I did not say that though. I simply said that it was plausible that DNA (the source of a significant portion of our behaviour) could plausibly be a factor in incidence of homosexuality. The fact that the mechanism is likely to be beyond our understanding does not mean that we should automatically decide that it is something else. That is about as unscientific as it is possible to be.

 

I already addressed this in my first bit of this reply. The spaghetti monster analogy is perfectly valid and applicable to this situation, but you are seemingly ill-equipped to comprehend how it applies. Your approach is the same as someone who believes in god, but whose only evidence is "you can't prove he doesn't exist, so therefore the possibility is still there!" In science, theories reign supreme my friend, and possibilities come a dime a dozen!

 

Again I really do hate to get angry/be rude, but your arguments make no sense. Genetics cannot play a factor in sexuality becuase of the repercussions that might have on people who steal lol? You are starting with a conclusion and looking back and hoping to see the evidence that will support what you think is right. There is no grater ''crime'' in science (lol) but I'll try and respond coherently anyway pal.

 

My arguments make plenty of sense. . however a bit more thinking seems to be required on your part. You quite simply have misconstrued and butchered just about everything I have said and somehow twisted it into your own distorted perceptions lol. Yes, I am saying that genetics can't have anything to do with homosexuality (or any other human behavior other than perhaps some instinctual ones which all humans share). Homosexuality is a behavior, no? It is something that someone can choose to become half-way through their life if they so desire. Many people do in fact turn gay, or turn straight at different points in their lives. If this was genetic, or had any genetic component at all, then they wouldn't be able to just "choose" to be (or not be) gay. You can't just choose to change your hair color or height halfway through your life lol.

 

You obviously aren't able to critically think about the implications of your claims. . so I'm sure I'm just wasting my time trying to explain these examples.

 

Firstly sexuality is a spectrum, it doesn't matter that you don't like it's implications, this is what any study into human sexuality has found. Some people like only men, some men a little bit and women lots, others like men lots and tentacle monsters and japanese school girls loads. There are as many sexual preferences in the world as their are people, ranging from one extreme to the opposite. That is a spectrum. No one in their right state of mind would say that emotions do not play a role here, but genetics could very easily be a factor too. I hope you can appreciate how ridiculous it is for you to absolutely insist that genetics cannot be a factor because there is no evidence to support it, whilst touting the alternative with absolute certainty despite its having the same inherent default.

 

You're getting into psychology here. . which I hate break it to you, is not science. This "spectrum" you speak of is entirely subjective and there is no reliable way to measure it.

It is a conceptual idea that exists in our heads only. . not objectively. There are also similar "spectrums" of love, hate, anger, virtually every emotion you could think of has a "spectrum." That certainly doesn't make it science. And oh yeah. . Ahem, ever heard of the "self-reporting problem" ?

 

Basically you haven't made on reasonable suggestion so far in this thread. If you want to offer an alternative view point then trying adding some actual evidence, don't just insist the hardest that you are right others are wrong/

 

Here's a reasonable suggestion: Do the research for yourself and be skeptical. Require more than just a few correlations from pop studies to formulate your understanding of science. There's a lot of bullsh*t out there, and unfortunately you have fallen head first into this steaming pile of it.

 

I can't speak for the OP but I'm sure he had heard about a genetic link to sexuality, since asked about one.

 

 

"Sure, not all sex leads to babies. But it DOES NOT FOLLOW then that not all babies come from sex! Well maybe test tube babies"

Congratulations! you have realised that life is slightly more complicated than

1 cause=1 effect.

 

You continue to misinterpret the facts and you are now putting words in my mouth, albeit they are irrelevant to the point at hand anyway. At no point did I say that 1 cause = 1 effect. . .somehow you have falsely interpreted this. I said that homosexuality is not genetic. Sure, I will venture as far as to say that I speculate it is caused by the interaction and presence of a number of environmental factors. But that is as far as I (and anyone else) can possibly go at this point. No one knows for sure which factors these are and why they produce such results. Genes are responsible for your eye/hair color, skin type, height, etc. but NOT for your behaviors like homosexuality, narcissism, depression, etc. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

 

Now you need to apply this to the case of human behaviour (which is very complicated).

 

 

A single gene cannot, on it's own determine eye colour, (in spite of what you said earlier).

Similarly there is no single "gay gene".

However there are genes related to sexual preference.

Okay, let me better illustrate for you the fallacy of your argument, since you have raised it twice to no avail. I did specifically point this out in my post earlier, but you've obviously missed it so I'll do it again. . .Of course no gene can determine anything on its own, it would be silly to assume so. But that doesn't change the fact that there are particular genes responsible for particular features.

 

Take a television for example, when it is being manufactured. The 'color chip' (component which gives color to the picture) is of course useless by itself, but without it the TV would be black and white. Add the component and you have a color picture. In the same way, genes are of course useless by themselves, that was never the issue here, but that doesn't mean that a particular gene can't be responsible for a particular feature.

 

 

But, when it comes down to it, there are clearly researched associations between genetics and sexual preferences.

 

The keyword here is "associations." Many junk studies show associations all the time, but that doesn't merit their validity. I see rubbish like this in the media all the time - "Gene thought to be linked to suicide" is a particular silly example I remember seeing somewhere a while back. Quite frankly it is troubling to see how they manipulate the general public's ignorance of science when it comes to such articles. It is very important to know that associations and correlations are relatively insignificant without a unifying theory. .like I said earlier, theories are everything in science. Without one (that can be reliably reproduced time and time again to come up with the same results), you really don't have science.

 

 

" The plausibility that homosexuality has any genetic origin at all is about equal to the plausibility that the flying spaghetti monster rules the universe. "

OK, explain the correlation please.

 

I have already explained the analogy earlier, but I will again. You are making a claim here - the claim that homosexuality has (at least in part) a genetic component. Homosexuality is well known to be a behavioral trait. . not a physical one like the previous examples of genetic expressions such as eye color or height. There is ample evidence to prove that these expressions (eye color, height, etc.) indeed are genetically predetermined, so I do not challenge this. But your claim, however, lacks ample evidence. There are no tests which are reliable enough to be done time and time again to yield the same results to prove your claim. To compound this problem, you have put forth the notion that you can't "exclude the possibility" of your claim simply because there isn't solid supporting evidence. So in other words, you are saying to me "You can't prove that homosexuality isn't genetically predetermined, therefore my claim is still valid." This is where you exit the realm of science and testable theories and into the realm of untestable philosophical debate. Just as I can't prove that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist, neither can I prove that homosexuality isn't genetic. . .but the evidence still strongly points in the opposite direction in both cases.

 

 

 

Also, why is there more association between sexual preference of identical twins than between fraternal twins?

 

 

Read this. . .

Homosexual Twin Studies

 

 

 

Two American activists recently published studies showing that if one of a pair of identical twins is homosexual, the other member of the pair will be, too, in just under 50% of the cases. On this basis, they claim that "homosexuality is genetic."

 

 

 

But two other genetic researchers--one heads one of the largest genetics departments in the country, the other is at Harvard--comment:

 

 

 

While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment.{2}

 

The author of the lead article on genes and behavior in a special issue of Science speaks of the renewed scientific recognition of the importance of environment. He notes the growing understanding that:

 

 

 

... the interaction of genes and environment is much more complicated than the simple "violence genes" and intelligence genes" touted in the popular press.The same data that show the effects of genes, also point to the enormous influence of nongenetic factors.{3}

 

Do you think a tendency to heterosexuality is genetic?

 

No, sexual orientation is a non-Mendelian trait. This is a crucial part of the point.

 

If not how do animals know whom to mate with?

 

Are you asking how animals know to mate with with members of the opposite sex? This can only provoke speculation, as we are unable to understand the psyche of animals.

[Stefan-CoA]

At the risk of being shot down... (I have not had the time to read the posts just yet, but I'd like to pop in my 5 cents)

 

I've read that the brains of homosexual men more closely resemble those of heterosexual women and the same goes for homosexual women having similar brains to heterosexual men. (There are differences between the genders when it comes to the brain - grey/white matter ratio and differences in size amongst the hemispheres as well as aptitudes at certain tasks). Now fair enough the brain is relatively malleable, but I think only at a functional level, not necessarily at a structural level.

 

So, I'm thinking, there have to be several genes encoding for these differences, possibly developmental ones that are active during gestation and possible post-partuition for at least a short while. I'm not saying the environment has nothing to do with it, it is as with everything a strong - possibly over-riding factor, yet I'm fairly certain there has to be a genetic basis for homosexuality. A lot of this is in the realm of speculation though (although I think in the late 90s some tentative evidence was procured), since sexuality itself is such a mysterious phenomenon as is.

 

<div><br></div><div>EDIT: There's also this recent study published in Nature <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature09822.html">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature09822.html</a> although I must stress that sexual behaviour in humans is most likely NOT as simple as in Mice</div>

Edited April 4, 2011 by Stefan-CoA

[SMF]

From the Swedish twin database this study finds for male homosexuality that 34% to 39% of the variance is explained by genetic background, while it is less for women at 18% to 19%- http://www.springerlink.com/content/2263646523551487/

SM

[HamsterPower]

i may be biased

but as christian,,, I don't believe in homosexuality

I think it is completely out of choice, just as other sins and i don't blame them

we are all sinners

if thats how you are naturally acting i understand cause

just like the ppl are naturally greedy (or whether the environment made us that way) it just happens naturally to us

 

For me as chrisitian, i think we should fight it off, (there have been cases where gay goes back to straight)

I mean its bad for health and you are suffering from ethical and moral issues, society is generally against it too

i am not saying gay people should chicken out

but more like "hey i was once gay, but i knew its not right so i decided to follow what is morally right"

again, i am being way biased here and i apologize for that

 

in conclusions

gay could happen naturally or by choice, but we know its not "right" and we shouldn't be encouraging people to become gays

But of course more like people to understand homosexuality and help them

[NTettamanti]

I'd like to propose a thought experiment; albeit there may be some flaws to it.

 

I think the way to determine this could be looking at it from an objective observer's point of view. If we view an individual who engages in heterosexual behavior, that behavior and subsequent emotions (sexual arousal, feelings of romantic love, etc.) can either be caused by genes or environmental influences. If we say that individuals are biologically drawn to heterosexuality then when we evaluate someone who shares the same behavior and subsequent emotions with another individual of the same sex we should find that they, too, are influenced genetically.

 

Likewise, if you believe the homosexual gene is socially acquired then why would it be intuitive to assume that heterosexual behavior occurs by any other mechanism than environmental acquisition. I would suggest that both heterosexuality and homosexuality must be caused by the same thing: genetically, socially or a little bit of both.

 

Of course, this is just a little thought experiment. It seems to make sense from an objective viewer's angle (rather than a subjective viewer who would proclaim that heterosexuality is genetic because a majority of the population is heterosexual, whereas homosexual populations are environmentally that way because "its not normal").

[insane_alien]

i may be biased

but as christian,,, I don't believe in homosexuality

 

you don't believe that men have sex with men and women have sex with women?

 

luckily, reality cares not about beliefs

 

I think it is completely out of choice,

 

so you do believe in homosexuality? you can't say its a choice if you believe it doesn't exist.

 

just as other sins and i don't blame them

we are all sinners

if thats how you are naturally acting i understand cause

just like the ppl are naturally greedy (or whether the environment made us that way) it just happens naturally to us

 

its a sin according to one specific moral code which is dated in many areas (to the point were some of its rules are flat out ignored by even its most strict followers)

 

its not a sin according to many of those who do not follow that specific code even some who do follow that code.

 

For me as chrisitian, i think we should fight it off, (there have been cases where gay goes back to straight)

I mean its bad for health and you are suffering from ethical and moral issues, society is generally against it too

 

how is it bad for your health? sex has generally been shown to be good for your health (of course there are STD's which aren't good but you get those from heterosexual intercourse as well)

 

i am not saying gay people should chicken out

but more like "hey i was once gay, but i knew its not right so i decided to follow what is morally right"

again, i am being way biased here and i apologize for that

 

whose morals. all morality is relative.

 

in conclusions

gay could happen naturally or by choice, but we know its not "right" and we shouldn't be encouraging people to become gays

But of course more like people to understand homosexuality and help them

 

how is it not "right" two people who love each other want a physical relationship as well as an emotional relationship? thats somehow wrong?

 

 

whats wrong is telling people to deny what they feel.

 

if someone came up to you and said it was morally corrupt to fancy blonde people and that you should stop or you'd go to hell.

 

who does homosexuality harm? nobody. it doesn't ev en impact on those outside the homosexual relationship in terms of quality of life. they may disagree with it but i'm pretty sure I could find some people who would disagree about anything.

[Stefan-CoA]

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/253/5023/1034.abstract

 

and

 

http://www.springerlink.com/content/l6104277w82137x4

 

Unfortunately neither are available for free but this should at least put to rest that tiresome argument that homosexuality is a choice or that no biological/genetic evidence exists for the cause of homosexuality.

 

As for the whole idea of being "morally corrupt" this is just ludicrous. If you want morally corrupt all you need to do is look at the Catholic Church, raping children and proclaiming the use of condoms as being responsible for the spread of AIDS is in my book far more corrupt, morally, than two guys or girls engaging in intercourse. If that doesn't convince you then look at all the suffering around you, wars, famine, disease. Why do you get so excited about whether two people have sex or not? Does it matter? Are they forcing you to watch them have sex? Are they forcing you to have sex with them? No. So grow up.

[JillSwift]

i may be biased

but as christian,,, I don't believe in homosexuality

I think it is completely out of choice, just as other sins and i don't blame them

we are all sinners

if thats how you are naturally acting i understand cause

just like the ppl are naturally greedy (or whether the environment made us that way) it just happens naturally to us

 

For me as chrisitian, i think we should fight it off, (there have been cases where gay goes back to straight)

I mean its bad for health and you are suffering from ethical and moral issues, society is generally against it too

i am not saying gay people should chicken out

but more like "hey i was once gay, but i knew its not right so i decided to follow what is morally right"

again, i am being way biased here and i apologize for that

 

in conclusions

gay could happen naturally or by choice, but we know its not "right" and we shouldn't be encouraging people to become gays

But of course more like people to understand homosexuality and help them

This is not a religion forum. Nor is it a discussion of ethics or morals.

[biohazard]

Flawed argument. Sure, everything about our physical (not behavioral) characteristics are governed by the interaction of multiple genes, not just eye color. But this doesn't change the fact that an individual must possess a specific gene to have a specific feature. If you completely lack the gene(s) for brown eyes, then you will not have brown eyes. This really is a very basic concept, you've even said yourself that it is "elementary textbook" stuff. So I'm surprised that you aren't grasping it then, lol.

 

 

 

Where do you think behavioural characteristics come from then? For instance, schizophrenia is arguably a 'behavioural characteristic' as is autism - yet it is established that these have a strong genetic component. Behaviour isn't some abstract notion that is completely detached from our physical (i.e. neurological) and thus genetic nature.

 

As long as you agree that behaviour is derived from brain activity, and that the brain is composed of neurones whose activity is to an extent genetically controlled, then you can't really escape that all behavioural characteristics are to some extent genetically determined (as far as I can see).

Edited April 23, 2011 by biohazard

[Marat]

I'm not sure why the question whether homosexuality is genetically conditioned or consciously chosen is so important. If someone were genetically programmed to be a murderer, or instead consciously chose to be a murderer even though his genetic make-up did not compel that choice, he would still be just as guilty in either case, since the moral evil of murder is the same regardless of its cause. Similarly, if homosexuality is morally unacceptable or morally acceptable as an activity then it hardly matters why people engage in it, since it should still either be prohibited and suppressed or not, respectively.

[Stefan-CoA]

I'm not sure why the question whether homosexuality is genetically conditioned or consciously chosen is so important. If someone were genetically programmed to be a murderer, or instead consciously chose to be a murderer even though his genetic make-up did not compel that choice, he would still be just as guilty in either case, since the moral evil of murder is the same regardless of its cause. Similarly, if homosexuality is morally unacceptable or morally acceptable as an activity then it hardly matters why people engage in it, since it should still either be prohibited and suppressed or not, respectively.

 

I can see the point you're making, but I'd be careful about drawing comparisons between murder and sexuality. Fair enough, both have an element of aggression present, but soon thereafter the neurological and biochemical aspects greatly diverge. I would also like to point out that the brain is a rather strange organ. If one gets hit by a "hormone storm" of sorts, sometimes there isn't much one can do. For murder for example there have been reports that during violent outbursts the perpetrators have "blanked out". Neurological evidence suggests that this is a possibility. As for homosexuality, I think it is of great scientific interest and may in future help with the abolishment of "straight camps". As for suppressing one's biology, I don't know to what extent this is possible. Sure gay men/women could enter into heterosexual partnerships, but I wouldn't want to be exposed to that sort of psychological pressure, as either partner.

[Moontanman]

I think at this point it is important to note that homosexuality and heterosexuality is not an either or thing. Most humans have a range of sexual desires from totally heterosexual to totally homosexual. Almost no one is really just one or the other. Our society seems to drive many people toward one extreme or the other but to try and say there is no middle ground is not accurate. Most homosexuals can and do at some point in their lives respond sexually to both sexes as do heterosexuals. Our society teaches us to suppress any feelings other than heterosexuality and most people do so, for some reason in our modern society women are often thought of as "hot" if they go both ways but men are not, the ease that many women seem to have going back and forth is IMHO cultural and both sexes are probably capable of more bi-sexual behavior than we currently see.

 

I would like to amend this post but keep the original wording so my mistake can be seen plainly, it is not bi-sexual behavior it is simply "sexual behavior" ...

Edited April 23, 2011 by Moontanman

[Marat]

In support of your point, I forget whether it was Kinsey or Johnson and Masters who noted that the enjoyment of heterosexual sex essentially involves a component of enjoyment of one's own physicality, which is not just auto-erotic, but also homosexual. So the two dispositions are not only on a continuum, but even essentially interconnected.

[Synalon]

I can see the point you're making, but I'd be careful about drawing comparisons between murder and sexuality. Fair enough, both have an element of aggression present, but soon thereafter the neurological and biochemical aspects greatly diverge. I would also like to point out that the brain is a rather strange organ. If one gets hit by a "hormone storm" of sorts, sometimes there isn't much one can do. For murder for example there have been reports that during violent outbursts the perpetrators have "blanked out". Neurological evidence suggests that this is a possibility. As for homosexuality, I think it is of great scientific interest and may in future help with the abolishment of "straight camps". As for suppressing one's biology, I don't know to what extent this is possible. Sure gay men/women could enter into heterosexual partnerships, but I wouldn't want to be exposed to that sort of psychological pressure, as either partner.

 

Marat is right, in the sense that whether or not homosexuality is a choice doesn't really matter to whether or not it's right or wrong. I'm not sure what conclusion he's drawing from that, however.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It may also be worth pointing out that the causes do not have to be uniform between genders.

 

Data from three studies assessing a total of 3,645 participants show that for most women, high sex drive is associated with increased sexual attraction to both men and women. For men, however, high sex drive is associated with increased sexual attraction to only one sex or the other, depending on the individual’s sexual orientation.

 

Lippa, R. (2006). Is High Sex Drive Associated With Increased Sexual Attraction to Both Sexes? Psychological Science, 17(1), 46-52. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01663.x

 

In light of that, I don't think we can call homosexuality highly unusual or unnatural.

[abused]

the cause of most homosexuals is childhood sexual abuse, it is very clear to me and i hope to make it clear to you, so you can stop harming me

 

when i was about 35 my brother came out and told me he was sexually abused as a child and he added that i was there also, but the thing is, that i have no memory of it. my brother told me that because he had just found out i was gay, and at the time i was more wrapped up in the feeling of being free that my brother knew my secret, being gay, so i didnt think at that time that sexual abuse caused me to be gay, i checked with my mother and she said that i was to young to remember the sexual abuse, me and m brother had been though.

 

so time went by, suddenly i decided to investigate, and the fact that i have no memory and but i do have most of the symtoms of sexual abuse,(other than being gay) it is really clear that the sexual abuse caused me to be gay.

 

 

ok so you dissagree with me, therefore if you do not agree that sexual abuse caused my homosexualality then,,,,, you are saying it is ok to sexually abuse children,, because,,, if i had no memory then i have no pain, no harm has come, i cant remember what happened, so therefore, what are my symtoms, (many and it is depressing)

 

my mother just thought, because this was a long time ago and different times, that if there is no memory of the event then nothing is going to happen,, ah haa!! look up Carl Jung and you will find that it has been proven that our subconscieness mind takes in things ten times faster then our conscienious mind does, and the subconscienious mind can figure out things on its own too. therefore i have great realization of what happened, and of course we all know how the childs mind molds in to place at the age of three and four years

 

so there i am, two and three years old, and am i telling you that any of this is my fault,,, no it is not, it was a pedifile, i was having sex before i could remember, so when someone calls me gay fag,it had been horrible because i blamed myself, because that is what society does, but now, all i see is a little boy learning about sex from a pedifle. Sexual abuse is a very bad thing and affects more than people think, it a whole life thing that only took, God know how long for that pedile, but i am a survior.

 

i dont have all the answers, but this is one of them,, when if found all this out, a great burden was lifted, i acually felt lighter, so i hope you are not going to one of those ingnorant , and i do need feedback, who dont know what they are taking about,

 

i was sexually abused and i believe it caused me to be gay although i have no memory of the abuse,

 

my brother told me that him and i were sexually abused when i was three and four years old, my mother confirmed it and said i was to young to remember

 

if the sexual abuse did not cause me to be gay then one could say that childhood sexual abuse is ok if the child is too young to remember, however, there is me

 

 

i had all the symtoms of childhood sexual abuse, but the symtoms came from blaming everything on me, that i made myself gay, as society does that to young men,

 

so i was started at age three, and we all know how the mind is molded at that age, and read some Carl Jung too.

 

you guys are mostly wasting time and not understanding, sexual abuse is a very powerfull thing to happen to anyone, and does last a lifetime, i have not all the answers, however,how could anyone dissagree with me,, i was only a small child and he was a pedifile, and this answer is for sure the one that set me free and healed, otherwise it is confusing, please reply

[iNow]

the cause of most homosexuals is childhood sexual abuse,

This is one of two things. It is either a) a lie, or b) an inaccurate statement from a person who is deeply misinformed.

 

I don't think the sexual abuse of children is okay, and I genuinely hope for healing for any children impacted in this way, including you and/or your brother should there be veracity in those comments. That does not negate the fact that this type of ignorance is quite easily corrected in today's world of accessible free information, and that you're strongly encouraged to reduce your ignorance. Many here will be glad to help if you're willing to learn.

[Rawrimagoose]

gay dudes don't have babies

[Moontanman]

gay dudes don't have babies

 

 

And what what would be the point of this statement other than to show you totally failed to read this thread not to mention you have no idea how babies are made???