Sexual Orientation as a Choice? Don't think so.

[The Vegan Marxist]

To me, the idea of sexual orientation being nothing more than a choice allows too many homophobic and religious criticisms open as a legitimate discussion, somehow. Fact of the matter, though, is that there's tons of more evidence towards genetic predetermining (or possibly predisposition) of sexual orientation, rather than the odd idea that we simply chose to be either gay, straight, or bi.

In fact, there's been over 1500 animal species studied where none showed the absence of homosexual behavior.

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexuality#Homosexual_behaviour

So are we really going to logically state that animals actually "choose" to be homosexual or straight? lol

Want more?


"The role of genetics in male sexual orientation was investigated by pedigree and linkage analyses on 114 families of homosexual men. Increased rates of same-sex orientation were found in the maternal uncles and male cousins of these subjects, but not in their fathers or paternal relatives, suggesting the possibility of sex-linked transmission in a portion of the population. DNA linkage analysis of a selected group of 40 families in which there were two gay brothers and no indication of nonmaternal transmission revealed a correlation between homosexual orientation and the inheritance of polymorphic markers on the X chromosome in approximately 64 percent of the sib-pairs tested. The linkage to markers on Xq28, the subtelomeric region of the long arm of the sex chromosome, had a multipoint lod score of 4.0 (P = 10(-5), indicating a statistical confidence level of more than 99 percent that at least one subtype of male sexual orientation is genetically influenced."

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/261/5119/321


"The Darwinian paradox of male homosexuality in humans is examined, i.e. if male homosexuality has a genetic component and homosexuals reproduce less than heterosexuals, then why is this trait maintained in the population? In a sample of 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men and their relatives (a total of over 4600 individuals), we found that female maternal relatives of homosexuals have higher fecundity than female maternal relatives of heterosexuals and that this difference is not found in female paternal relatives. The study confirms previous reports, in particular that homosexuals have more maternal than paternal male homosexual relatives, that homosexual males are more often later-born than first–born and that they have more older brothers than older sisters. We discuss the findings and their implications for current research on male homosexuality."

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/271/1554/2217.full.pdf+html


"Homosexual male probands with monozygotic cotwins, dizygotic cotwins, or adoptive brothers were recruited using homophile publications. Sexual orientation of relatives was assessed either by asking relatives directly, or when this was impossible, asking the probands. Of the relatives whose sexual orientation could be rated, 52% (29/56) of monozygotic cotwins, 22% (12/54) of dizygotic cotwins, and 11% (6/57) of adoptive brothers were homosexual. Heritabilities were substantial under a wide range of assumptions about the population base rate of homosexuality and ascertainment bias"

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=5184312


"We examined data from a large cohort of homosexual and heterosexual females and males concerning their siblings' sexual orientations. As in previous studies, both male and female homosexuality were familial. Homosexual females had an excess of homosexual brothers compared to heteroxual subjects, thus providing evidence that similar familial factors influence both male and female homosexuality. Furthermore, despite the large sample size, homosexual females and males did not differ significantly from each other in their proportions of either homosexual sisters or homosexual brothers. Thus, results were most consistent with the possibility that similar familial factors influence male and female sexual orientation.

We also examined whether some parental influences comprised shared environmental effects on sexual orientation. Scales attempting to measure such influences failed to distinguish subjects with homosexual siblings from subjects with only heterosexual siblings and, thus, did not appear to measure shared environmental determinants of sexual orientation."

http://www.springerlink.com/content/k7w03624953x255l/

[Broletariat]

Honestly I don't think it matters in the least whether or not people choose to be gay. Not as far as any sort of legal rights are concerned at least. If I were in discussion with a person and they brought up the point that it's a choice I wouldn't defer the debate there, but hold fast to the idea that people have the right to choose to do whatever the fuck they like so long as no one is harmed.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Honestly I don't think it matters in the least whether or not people choose to be gay. Not as far as any sort of legal rights are concerned at least. If I were in discussion with a person and they brought up the point that it's a choice I wouldn't defer the debate there, but hold fast to the idea that people have the right to choose to do whatever the fuck they like so long as no one is harmed.

But, unfortunately, it's become an issue here in the States. The "choice" theory puts those who are homosexual and bisexual in a dangerous position to be in, because of the type of fundies we have in this country, who actually believe gays "are sexual deviants who inevitably will go to hell."

[Blackscare]

I'm against placing too much stock in the "nature" argument. While it may be true to some extent, I feel that relying on it concedes to the right that it's somehow less acceptable to choose. The point should be that it's unacceptable to persecute homosexuals or other sexual minorities, period.

Also I've noticed (more among women than guys I know, in fact I've never observed a guy doing this) that some people do make a conscious decision regarding sexuality. A post of TC's from the past that was recently quoted comes to mind, although I couldn't begin to remember where to find it.

[Broletariat]

But, unfortunately, it's become an issue here in the States. The "choice" theory puts those who are homosexual and bisexual in a dangerous position to be in, because of the type of fundies we have in this country, who actually believe gays "are sexual deviants who inevitably will go to hell."
Elaborate on how it being a choice makes it any "worse" than it being genetically ingrained?

[The Vegan Marxist]

I'm against placing too much stock in the "nature" argument. While it may be true to some extent, I feel that relying on it concedes to the right that it's somehow less acceptable to choose. The point should be that it's unacceptable to persecute homosexuals or other sexual minorities, period.

Also I've noticed (more among women than guys I know, in fact I've never observed a guy doing this) that some people do make a conscious decision regarding sexuality. A post of TC's from the past that was recently quoted comes to mind, although I couldn't begin to remember where to find it.

I've never seen anybody, whether it be guys or girls, simply make a choice. They've come to realize to what they didn't accept before, but never actually CHOSE to be a certain sexual orientation.

And really, it's not putting too much stock on the nature argument. The nature argument, under a real scientific argument, is very slim, and most genetic components act as a predisposition, rather than being what predetermines.

Fact is that there's more evidence towards genetic-led sexual orientation than the "choice" theory.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Elaborate on how it being a choice makes it any "worse" than it being genetically ingrained?

Through the idea of choice, it allows the religious and homophobic's have the ability to argue that these people are being gay or bi on purpose, and that they have the power to change them "back to being straight", which in history has been some pretty evil shit in doing so!

With understanding sexual orientation being a genetic basis, we then have to accept the idea that these people are just that - people. They were born straight, gay, bi, whatever! You can't change them, they don't want to be changed, they want to be happy being them, and not what you want them to be.

[Blackscare]

Elaborate on how it being a choice makes it any "worse" than it being genetically ingrained?

From a moralistic Christian perspective, Homosexuality is immoral because it is forbidden and certain "sinful" people choose to engage in it. As a consequence, homosexuals are reviled. To concede that people are born with sexual orientation would imply that god had made it so, making the Christian perspective hard to justify.


The problem with this line of argument is that Christians, being dogmatic mystical nutjobs, will simply never concede defeat regarding "nature vs nurture" regardless of scientific evidence provided. So it's a dead-end. We need to instead insist that regardless of the reason for a person being a homosexual, it is unacceptable to persecute them (us).

If you argue too exclusively for the "nature" argument, you give the Christians wiggle room to justify their engagement in bigotry.

[Blackscare]

I've never seen anybody, whether it be guys or girls, simply make a choice. They've come to realize to what they didn't accept before, but never actually CHOSE to be a certain sexual orientation.

I know at least 3 lesbians who make this claim, and I won't be so arrogant as to say that they're lying or misrepresenting the process by which they became lesbian. And regardless, even if they actually did simply come to grip with feelings they had suppressed up to that point and presented it was having made a conscious decision, it would not change a thing. You can't possibly try to assign some sort of universal formula to something as hazy as sexuality or seriously claim, because you haven't personally encountered it, that nobody has ever made a conscious decision to change their sexuality. The point is, regardless of motive or causation, there is nothing wrong with being a homosexual or engaging in homosexual behavior.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I know at least 3 lesbians who make this claim, and I won't be so arrogant as to say that they're lying or misrepresenting the process by which they became lesbian. And regardless, even if they actually did simply come to grip with feelings they had suppressed up to that point and presented it was having made a conscious decision, it would not change a thing. You can't possibly try to assign some sort of universal formula to something as hazy as sexuality or seriously claim, because you haven't personally encountered it, that nobody has ever made a conscious decision to change their sexuality. The point is, regardless of motive or causation, there is nothing wrong with being a homosexual or engaging in homosexual behavior.

I agree, 100%. I just think we need to actually start making concrete arguments on such topics whenever the topic becomes discussed. We simply can't just wither it away with a "it doesn't matter".

[Lucretia]

But, unfortunately, it's become an issue here in the States. The "choice" theory puts those who are homosexual and bisexual in a dangerous position to be in, because of the type of fundies we have in this country, who actually believe gays "are sexual deviants who inevitably will go to hell."

You are presenting this as a false dichotomy: either there's something called sexual orientation that's genetically predetermined from birth or it's a totally free choice. What about a third, more dialectically interactionist option, which makes sexual orientation out to be the result of a complex of factors including (perhaps) genetic predisposition, life experiences, etc.? I suggest you read Lewontin and Rose's book "Not in Our Genes."

Even if sexual orientation were genetically predetermined, how would we know the level of abstraction at which we could describe that supposedly genetic determination? Are people predetermined to like people of a certain sex, of a certain eye color, height, weight?

The science on this is far from as conclusive as you seem to think.

[The Vegan Marxist]

You are presenting this as a false dichotomy: either there's something called sexual orientation that's genetically predetermined or it's a choice. What about a third option, which makes sexual orientation out to be the result of a complex of factors including (perhaps) genetic predisposition, life experiences, etc.?

Even if sexual orientation were genetically predetermined, how would we know the nature of which aspects of the orientation are predetermined? Are people predetermined to like people of a certain sex, of a certain eye color, height, weight?

The science on this is far from as conclusive as you seem to think.

I actually present the possibility of predisposition as well, if you read my first post. And I'm not trying to say the science is now conclusive like climate change or evolution. But rather that, from the science we have right now, there's more towards the genetic argument than there is the "choice" theory.

[Blackscare]

I agree, 100%. I just think we need to actually start making concrete arguments on such topics whenever the topic becomes discussed. We simply can't just wither it away with a "it doesn't matter".

I understand what you're saying, when this comes up for me I do mention that there is a genetic basis but I always follow up by insisting that even if every person got to pull a lever when they graduated High School to decide their sexuality, being a homosexual would still be acceptable. Or some other analogy, or none at all, you get the idea. ;)


I just think it's extremely important to be persistent on this matter, we can't concede any moral high ground to those crazies.

[Lucretia]

I actually present the possibility of predisposition as well, if you read my first post. And I'm not trying to say the science is now conclusive like climate change or evolution. But rather that, from the science we have right now, there's more towards the genetic argument than there is the "choice" theory.

More towards the genetic argument? Their arguments almost always try to make the case for a gay gene, so it's not like we can say that we accept a moderate form of genetic determination if we admit that their arguments are somewhat plausible. If we accept the plausibility of their arguments at all, we are locked into a rigid genetic determinism.

You mention predisposition, but again, the question is: at what level of abstraction are genes disposing people to behave sexually? Are they predisposing some people into enjoying certain sexual activities more than others, certain sexual positions more than others, certain features of sexual partners more than others (height? weight? sex? age? hair color?)? A good critique of a lot of this science can also be found in a book called "Ambiguity and Sexuality."

Most of the interesting ideological work in these gay gene studies goes on before the study is ever off the ground, when the scientists are defining exactly what they mean by sexual orientation.

[The Vegan Marxist]

More towards the genetic argument? Their arguments almost always try to make the case for a gay gene, so it's not like we can say that we accept a moderate form of genetic determination if we admit that their arguments are somewhat plausible. If we accept the plausibility of their arguments at all, we are locked into a rigid genetic determinism.

You mention predisposition, but again, the question is: at what level of abstraction are genes disposing people to behave sexually? Are they predisposing some people into enjoying certain sexual activities more than others, certain sexual positions more than others, certain features of sexual partners more than others (height? weight? sex? age? hair color?)? A good critique of a lot of this science can also be found in a book called "Ambiguity and Sexuality."

Most of the interesting ideological work in these gay gene studies goes on before the study is ever off the ground, when the scientists are defining exactly what they mean by sexual orientation.

And yet you ignore the fact that animals have shown the same sexual orientation as homo-sapiens, so are you stating that they chose to be gay, straight or bi?

[The Vegan Marxist]

I also would point out this article as well, published through the New Scientist:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html

[Lucretia]

And yet you ignore the fact that animals have shown the same sexual orientation as homo-sapiens, so are you stating that they chose to be gay, straight or bi?

This is an idiotic post on a number of fronts. First, you mistakenly seem to believe I am explicitly arguing that people choose to be gay, which I expressly disavowed in my first contribution to this thread. Instead, I cast my lot for a more dialectically interactionist approach that allows for broad-based genetic predisposition and also acknowledge the importance of the unintended consequences of free human choice (in other words, people don't "choose" to like men more than women anymore than there is a gene that determines that they like men more than women--liking men more than women might be the product of a complex mosaic of factors, none of which involves a sex-dichotomous variable). So no, in case you did not comprehend me when I criticized your attempt at limiting the playing field to "free choice versus genetic determinism," I am not stating that anybody chooses what we call a sexual orientation.

Second, I don't think any scientist or zoologist talks of non-hominid animals as having a sexual orientation. They exhibit sexual behaviors.

[The Vegan Marxist]

This is an idiotic post on a number of fronts. First, you mistakenly seem to believe I am explicitly arguing that people choose to be gay, which I expressly disavowed in my first contribution to this thread. Instead, I cast my lot for a more dialectically interactionist approach that allows for broad-based genetic predisposition and also acknowledge the importance of the unintended consequences of free human choice (in other words, people don't "choose" to like men more than women anymore than there is a gene that determines that they like men more than women--liking men more than women might be the product of a complex mosaic of factors, none of which involves a sex-dichotomous variable). So no, in case you did not comprehend me when I criticized your attempt at limiting the playing field to "free choice versus genetic determinism," I am not stating that anybody chooses what we call a sexual orientation.

Second, I don't think any scientist or zoologist talks of non-hominid animals having a sexual orientation. They exhibit sexual behaviors.

As do homo-sapiens. "Sexual orientation" is simply a term that was made by homo-sapiens to differentiate certain sexual lifestyles.

Every animal, this including homo-sapiens, express sexual behaviors.

[Nolan]

Well if it's genetic and not their choice then obviously what we should do as god fearing zealots is put them and their immediate families in camps and kill them.

[Lucretia]

As do homo-sapiens. "Sexual orientation" is simply a term that was made by homo-sapiens to differentiate certain sexual lifestyles.

Every animal, this including homo-sapiens, express sexual behaviors.

Wow, just wow. Do you always start threads on things you know so little about, then presume to criticize people who clearly know more than what a few google searches might yield?

Sexual orientation has a specific meaning in the scientific, theoretical, and philosophical literature that does not coincide with "sexual lifestyle." It refers specifically to an enduring predilection to engage in sex with a person of a particular sex. In other words, having a foot fetish or engaging in S/M is not a sexual orientation though it might constitute a sexual lifestyle . Liking women more than men is having a sexual orientation. My problem with "sexual orientation gene" studies is precisely the arbitrary and politically motivated nature of this distinction between lifestyle and orientation. The problem with the science is that it is trying to naturalize gay behavior by seeking a gay gene but not S/M behavior by seeking an S/M gene. My problem is with the idea that gay behavior needs to be justified by being linked to some gene. It doesn't, and these studies are problematically geared toward seeking a single cause to a sex-dichotomous understanding of sexuality that is assumed before these studies begin. Now are you beginning to see how ideological and flawed the scientific approach is here? That's my point, not that any sexual desire is freely chosen, which is clearly an absurd position to take.

[Lucretia]

Well if it's genetic and not their choice then obviously what we should do as god fearing zealots is put them and their immediate families in camps and kill them.

Huh? The faulty assumption undergirding many of the posts on this thread seems to be that if there were a proven gay gene, religious crackpots would be more inclined to accept homosexuality as a non-sinful behavior. But there is no reason to believe this to be true. Did Hitler suddenly think it was okay to be Jewish because he believed Jewishness to be genetic? If anything, the quest for a gay gene might just add a eugenicist slant to anti-gay rhetoric.

[NewSocialist]

I know at least 3 lesbians who make this claim, and I won't be so arrogant as to say that they're lying or misrepresenting the process by which they became lesbian. And regardless, even if they actually did simply come to grip with feelings they had suppressed up to that point and presented it was having made a conscious decision, it would not change a thing. You can't possibly try to assign some sort of universal formula to something as hazy as sexuality or seriously claim, because you haven't personally encountered it, that nobody has ever made a conscious decision to change their sexuality. The point is, regardless of motive or causation, there is nothing wrong with being a homosexual or engaging in homosexual behavior.

Research the 'Kinsey scale'

[Blackscare]

Research the 'Kinsey scale'

Thanks, but I'm well aware of what the Kinsey scale is, and if you re-read what I said it doesn't have anything to do with any of my posts. The Kinsey scale is hardly a universal, rigid formula defining how people arrive at sexual preferences. It merely categorizes people according to the degree of attraction/appreciation of a given sex. If anything it's a testament to just how variable and hard to classify sexuality is.



[Edit]
Also, I'd like to add that it's terrible form to just quote an entire post and make a vague statement such as "research the kinsey scale" without making it clear what part of a post you're referencing, or making it clear what exactly your point is.

[NewSocialist]

Thanks, but I'm well aware of what the Kinsey scale is, and if you re-read what I said it doesn't have anything to do with any of my posts. The Kinsey scale is hardly a universal, rigid formula defining how people arrive at sexual preferences. It merely categorizes people according to the degree of attraction/appreciation of a given sex. If anything it's a testament to just how variable and hard to classify sexuality is.

Stop being a hypersensitive douche bag.

The reason I brought up the Kinsey scale was to show that even if you have "lesbian friends" who made a conscious decision to be in a homosexual relationship doesn't imply that sexual orientation is a choice for *everyone*. I'm of the view that it is the result of a complex interaction of genes and environment, just as you are [and what the Kinsey scale indeed helps to verify].

[Blackscare]

Stop being a hypersensitive douche bag.

Considering you're the one calling people douche bags, I'll leave it to people reading this thread who's being hypersensitive.




The reason I brought up the Kinsey scale was to show that even if you have "lesbian friends" who made a conscious decision to be in a homosexual relationship doesn't imply that sexual orientation is a choice for *everyone*.
Remind me where I said this?

[Nolan]

Huh? The faulty assumption undergirding many of the posts on this thread seems to be that if there were a proven gay gene, religious crackpots would be more inclined to accept homosexuality as a non-sinful behavior. But there is no reason to believe this to be true. Did Hitler suddenly think it was okay to be Jewish because he believed Jewishness to be genetic? If anything, the quest for a gay gene might just add a eugenicist slant to anti-gay rhetoric.

Yes, and?

[NewSocialist]

Considering you're the one calling people douche bags, I'll leave it to people reading this thread who's being hypersensitive.

You're behaving in both a hypersensitive and douche-like manner in this discussion. And yes, I'm perfectly fine having the readers decide which of us that classification is more appropriate for.


Remind me where I said this?

You didn't but someone might easily infer that from your example.

[scarletghoul]

Through the idea of choice, it allows the religious and homophobic's have the ability to argue that these people are being gay or bi on purpose, and that they have the power to change them "back to being straight", which in history has been some pretty evil shit in doing so!

With understanding sexual orientation being a genetic basis, we then have to accept the idea that these people are just that - people. They were born straight, gay, bi, whatever! You can't change them, they don't want to be changed, they want to be happy being them, and not what you want them to be.
The moment you shift your argument to the enemy's binary (ie, them: 'its not natural' you: 'yes it is') you are arguing on their terms, and you have already lost in a sense.

[PhoenixAsh]

Not mentioned is the fact that the search and yes or no existence of a sexual behaviour gene will not stop any debate about equality for homosexuals in the least. In fact it will create a whole different debate and give fuel to some practices already established: If we should or should not be `cured` and, in the extend to this debate, could that be forced upon an individual?

[Sasha]

there is no point in having this argument at all if your opponents are the homophobes.
say its an form of choice and they say sinner burn in hell etc etc.
say its genetic and suddenly these "god created us, dont mess with creation" are suddenly all for gene-therapy and an cure.
they are homophobes and biggots, they are not rational

[PhoenixAsh]

Exactly.

Homophobia is irrational. Where you can have succes in batteling homophobia ia homophobia created through social fear. Meaning some people are homophobic because they feel if they are supportive, understanding or accepting about homosexuality it will have social reprecussions for them.

A real life example to clarify:

A mother of three children. One of them is homosexual. She does not want anybody to find out that her son is homosexual because of how their familiy and her society will treat her son and view her as a mother. She in fact goes a long way to try to "cure" him by not accepting his behaviour, little things like buying his&her bedsheets for him and refusing him to take boyfriends home, continuously saying she is so disappointed in him.

The irony is that the entire family knew about it for years on end, was completely ok with it and never thought anything about it. ...but since she tried to hide the fact and did not talk about it she did not know. Nobody said anything to her because it never came up.

It did however completely fuck up the mother-child relation for years. Sad.
Luckilly that changed....that started when someone made a huge fuss about her behaviour (:D)...but got way better because he eventually chose a white boyfriend...which goes to show that you can be from an ethnic group but still be a bit racist against your own ethnicity :confused:

[The Vegan Marxist]

More towards the genetic argument? Their arguments almost always try to make the case for a gay gene, so it's not like we can say that we accept a moderate form of genetic determination if we admit that their arguments are somewhat plausible. If we accept the plausibility of their arguments at all, we are locked into a rigid genetic determinism.

You mention predisposition, but again, the question is: at what level of abstraction are genes disposing people to behave sexually? Are they predisposing some people into enjoying certain sexual activities more than others, certain sexual positions more than others, certain features of sexual partners more than others (height? weight? sex? age? hair color?)? A good critique of a lot of this science can also be found in a book called "Ambiguity and Sexuality."

Most of the interesting ideological work in these gay gene studies goes on before the study is ever off the ground, when the scientists are defining exactly what they mean by sexual orientation.

A friend noticed this post of yours, so he wanted to respond to it (you must feel loved now lol)

So here it is:


This argument is severely flawed. It doesn't follow that if it could be determined that my preference for vanilla ice cream over chocolate ice cream had some biological basis that every element of my behavior is entirely determined rigidly by genes. It also requires an ignorance of how biological phenotypes are determined, which is genes + environment = phenotype. Genes are always involved in producing any phenotype, at some level, you have to have a functioning brain to have any sort of personality after all. Think of height, height has a genetic component, but it also has an environmental component, which is nutrition.

That last paragraph that I didn't quote is nonsense, you have to define your terms in any behavioral study so that it can be compared with other studies.

Although, there are ambiguities in defining sexual behaviors and grouping people along what I think are pretty much arbitrarily determined lines of human sexual behavior. We have mostly moved homosexuality from being something aberrant into a Kinsey like spectrum of normal behavior that includes homosexuality and heterosexuality. That approach is naive I think, it does certainly ignore how many different sexual behaviors exist. However, this doesn't negate the fact that genetics can have a significant effect on our sexual behavior, all it demonstrates is is that our terminology is deficient.

[Lucretia]

A friend noticed this post of yours, so he wanted to respond to it (you must feel loved now lol)

So here it is:

Your friend doesn't have an account here to respond directly? Did he/she behave badly?

Anyways, I don't think your friend quite understands my point. Obviously genes plus environment equals phenotype. Nobody is disputing that. What I am disputing is the idea that the aspect of sexual desire that can and should be explained genetically is only the biological sex of the person one is attracted to. In other words, I am challenging whether a gene that predisposes people to prefer certain types of sexual partner is necessarily a gene that guides us to attraction toward a particular sex, rather than some other major phenotypic feature such as weight, height, age, etc.


Although, there are ambiguities in defining sexual behaviors and grouping people along what I think are pretty much arbitrarily determined lines of human sexual behavior. We have mostly moved homosexuality from being something aberrant into a Kinsey like spectrum of normal behavior that includes homosexuality and heterosexuality. That approach is naive I think, it does certainly ignore how many different sexual behaviors exist. However, this doesn't negate the fact that genetics can have a significant effect on our sexual behavior, all it demonstrates is is that our terminology is deficient.The problem here is that your friend is still operating under the flawed assumption that the one aspect of sexual behavior that needs to be studied in order to determine whether it has a genetic basis is the biological sex of the person somebody is attracted to. Again, this is totally the product of our current historically specific paradigm of classifying "orientations" as homosexual and heterosexual on the basis of sex of preferred object choice, while classifying every other sexual predilection as a lifestyle or even a paraphilia. Your friend is right that genetics can have a significant effect on our sexual behavior. He is wrong in saying that this means studies looking for a "gay gene" are not problematic. They are, because they craft their studies under the assumption that the genetic mechanism determining sexuality operates according to our socially constructed categories of sexuality. Sorry, but just because we divide people into heterosexual and homosexual does not mean that our genes act the same way. That's just too simple, and the science just too ideological.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Anyways, I don't think your friend quite understands my point. Obviously genes plus environment equals phenotype. Nobody is disputing that. What I am disputing is the idea that the aspect of sexual desire that can and should be explained genetically is only the biological sex of the person one is attracted to. In other words, I am challenging whether a gene that predisposes people to prefer certain types of sexual partner is necessarily a gene that guides us to attraction toward a particular sex, rather than some other major phenotypic feature such as weight, height, age, etc.

The problem here is that your friend is still operating under the flawed assumption that the one aspect of sexual behavior that needs to be studied in order to determine whether it has a genetic basis is the biological sex of the person somebody is attracted to. Again, this is totally the product of our current historically specific paradigm of classifying "orientations" as homosexual and heterosexual on the basis of sex of preferred object choice, while classifying every other sexual predilection as a lifestyle or even a paraphilia. Your friend is right that genetics can have a significant effect on our sexual behavior. He is wrong in saying that this means studies looking for a "gay gene" are not problematic. They are, because they craft their studies under the assumption that the genetic mechanism determining sexuality operates according to our socially constructed categories of sexuality. Sorry, but just because we divide people into heterosexual and homosexual does not mean that our genes act the same way. That's just too simple, and the science just too ideological.

Round 2:


I don't think studies looking at sexuality aren't at times problematic, that isn't the point. Studies have limitations, expecting them to explain every possible variable is impossible. We can only attempt to study certain variables and determine if there seems to be a relationship.

Scientist understand the labels to just be functional, for ease of terminology and reference, and not signifying some objective rigid definition. These studies are looking at genetic connection to one main variable, sexual orientation identity in adults. The attitude he disagrees with comes from a misunderstanding of science, not from what the scientific studies actually try to achieve. It seems like the usual post-modernist twisting of science that operates from naive assumptions of scientific attitudes and understandings. I'm sure they apply to some scientist, they're human beings after all and subject to biases just like anyone else, but any reasonably educated scientist today is aware of the limitations of the scientific method and are wary of making the overarching claims like suggesting that a "gay gene" exists that produces a modern homosexual identity, which would be ridiculous because such an identity relies on cultural constructs that are also intertwined with complex understandings of gender.

Edit: I've read Foucault, Sedgwick, and Butler so I'm familiar with these criticisms.

[Summerspeaker]

I hate notion of a gay gene or that I have should to plead that I can't help being queer. No thanks. I want to smash the whole notion of sexual orientation.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I hate notion of a gay gene or that I have should to plead that I can't help being queer. No thanks. I want to smash the whole notion of sexual orientation.

Very anarcho of you. But just because a creationist says he hates the notion of there being no god and will smash that very notion, doesn't make it correct, nor scientific.

[Jimmie Higgins]

To me, the idea of sexual orientation being nothing more than a choice allows too many homophobic and religious criticisms open as a legitimate discussion, somehow. Fact of the matter, though, is that there's tons of more evidence towards genetic predetermining (or possibly predisposition) of sexual orientation, rather than the odd idea that we simply chose to be either gay, straight, or bi.Until the gay lib movement in the US, the argument was the opposite: non-hetero sexuality was a deviancy that needed to be "corrected".

I think the "genetic idea" is bunk frankly. Is there a "gene" that makes previously straight sailors "become gay" on long sea voyages| Prisoners, people in same-sex schools?

I don't think people consciously decide one day to have any particular sexuality, but I think the idea that specific sexual behaviors or preferences are somehow "inborn" or generic and static are potentially scary and harmful to people. First of all people don't just have one or another sexual preferences and the conception (almost unanimous among supporters of LGBT rights and many regular LGBT people as well as non-homophbic people) that sexuality is inborn creates sexual confusion both for people who identify as "straight" and have homosexual desires or experiences and people who identify as "gay" but develop feelings or have an experience with someone of a different sex.

IMO, sexuality should be seen as fluid and people should be defended in any non-exploitative sexual behaviors or feelings.


In fact, there's been over 1500 animal species studied where none showed the absence of homosexual behavior. Yeah, but that doesn't mean sexual preference is genetic, it just means that the desire for sexual fulfillment is completely "natural" outside of modern (homophobic) concepts of universal hetero-sexual normalcy.

I think history suggests that same-sex relations and the openness about it are different in different kinds of societies. There are very famous examples of cultures where homosexual and heterosexual relationships were considered the norm and in some Greek societies, male homosexual experiences were valued higher socially than opposite-sex experiences.

To me this is all the more reason to fight for LGBT rights. The more gay people have rights and respect, the more the whole spectrum of consensual sexual preferences can have rights. While it's important for straight-identifying people to have solidarity with LGBT opression, I also think straight people should realize that gay liberation is the tip of the iceburg and that the ruling class represses homosexuality as a means to repress all sexuality and all non-compliance with bourgeois "morals". Afterall, the same bigots who oppress LGBT people also want women in the kitchen, reproduction-only sex for all people, and bans on abortion and contraception and sex ed!

[hatzel]

I hate notion of a gay gene or that I have should to plead that I can't help being queer. No thanks. I want to smash the whole notion of sexual orientation.


Very anarcho of you. But just because a creationist says he hates the notion of there being no god and will smash that very notion, doesn't make it correct, nor scientific.

To be honest, Summer has actually hit on something which seems all to easily overlooked. A quick look back at historical cultures, such as pre-Islamic India, China, Viking age Scandinavia, whatever...you'll find a greatly increased prevalence of what we would deem 'homosexual behaviour'. The Chinese aristocracy would happily keep their wives hidden away somewhere, to just be used for reproduction, whilst engaging in non-reproductive sex with their male servants. An effective form of contraception, I think we'll agree, when you just want to get your rocks off without the risk of a baby showing up. Pre-Islamic India also had a number of same-sex religious rituals, as have many other cultures. As we know, in these situations, the dividing line wouldn't be between hetero- and homosexual, but between the rolls. That is, between the 'masculine' roll and the 'feminine' roll, and a Chinese aristocrat performing the 'masculine' roll on another male would be viewed no different from one performing it on a female.

So...using historical evidence, and the widespread incidence of same-sex activity in many non-European (and even many old European) cultures, suggests that it's not so crazy to support the notion that sexual orientation is bullshit talk. As the film Tillsammans pointed out, if a guy shuts his eyes, he wouldn't know whether it's a guy or a girl giving him oral sex. In this respect, it's nothing physical, preferring the man or the woman from a strict sense of more or less sexual pleasure, more it's the notion in one's head that it would be, for some reason, more or less pleasurable with a man or a woman. And that's a social thing, something put into us, whether we consider it abhorrent or acceptable to engage in same-sex activity. Those Chinese aristocrats were surely raised in a society conductive to considering it acceptable, even normal.

Sure, one might have some kind of predetermined sexual preferences, but I see no reason why this sexual preference, preferring one sex over the other, deserves to be called a sexual orientation. I mean, if we say that a homosexual male finds men more attractive than women, then we might as well call me, who finds brunettes more attractive than blondes, to have a particular sexual orientation, brunettosexual, and if we think it's a physical thing...well, I'm sure that there are many heterosexual guys who are particularly keen on oral, anal or other styles of non-vaginal sex. Because for them, it is sexually more appealing. Their girlfriend may disagree, she might not enjoy it, not be comfortable with it, whatever. And these are clearly sexual preferences, not sexual orientations. Analsexual? No no...

That was slightly rambling (c'mon, it is 2:30am), but I hope I got the idea across, the defense of the idea of abolishing sexual orientation, as in fact it is a fluid thing that we dictate based on one's preferred sexual practices, whilst in a different society, people we would today deem 'heterosexual' may gladly engage in what we would call 'homosexual' activity with that male servant, and nobody would consider them abnormal, strange, or even worthy of a name to define their so called 'orientation'.

The whole idea of talking about homosexuality through the lens of nature vs. nurture, throwing in the choice suggestion here or there, is still stuck in the idea of there being two (okay, three or more, but the number's not important) distinct groups of people, with no possibility for crossover, no chance for men who consider themselves heterosexual on the back of their having girlfriends and stuff to ever admit that they might physically enjoy homosexual intercourse...to me, this is playing on somebody else's terms. And we don't have to play by those terms, and 'justify' homosexuality, the trait, choice, affliction, whatever the hell any given group of people may claim it to be, integrally woven in to the person. As if to claim that a man we today deem homosexual could never enjoy sex with a woman, or perhaps even fall in love with a woman, and that that woman, who we today could heterosexual, could never herself enjoy sex with a woman, either, or even fall in love with her.

[Lucretia]

The whole idea of talking about homosexuality through the lens of nature vs. nurture, throwing in the choice suggestion here or there, is still stuck in the idea of there being two (okay, three or more, but the number's not important) distinct groups of people, with no possibility for crossover, no chance for men who consider themselves heterosexual on the back of their having girlfriends and stuff to ever admit that they might physically enjoy homosexual intercourse...to me, this is playing on somebody else's terms. And we don't have to play by those terms, and 'justify' homosexuality, the trait, choice, affliction, whatever the hell any given group of people may claim it to be, integrally woven in to the person. As if to claim that a man we today deem homosexual could never enjoy sex with a woman, or perhaps even fall in love with a woman, and that that woman, who we today could heterosexual, could never herself enjoy sex with a woman, either, or even fall in love with her.

Very nicely stated. This is precisely the kind of point I am making.

[Lucretia]

Round 2:
I don't think studies looking at sexuality aren't at times problematic, that isn't the point. Studies have limitations, expecting them to explain every possible variable is impossible. We can only attempt to study certain variables and determine if there seems to be a relationship.

The fact that there are serious issues with these studies about the genetic basis of "sexual orientation" is exactly the point. Most of these studies aren't looking for a genetic basis to "sexual behavior" or to "sexual desire." They are looking to map a one-to-one correspondence between what we call "sexual orientation" and a set of genetic/biological mechanisms. It's not a matter of failing to explain enough aspects of sexual orientation, and my criticism isn't that they are explaining the origins of homo/heterosexuality but not BSDM. My criticism is that any attempt to move beyond correlate studies -- which don't really explain anything -- and posit a causal mechanism for a sexual predisposition is flawed when it already assumes, by the very research question being investigated, that the nature of this mechanism leads some people to be attracted predominantly to males, and other predominantly to females, rather than potentially creating sexual divisions orthogonal to biological sex.


Scientist understand the labels to just be functional, for ease of terminology and reference, and not signifying some objective rigid definition. These studies are looking at genetic connection to one main variable, sexual orientation identity in adults. The attitude he disagrees with comes from a misunderstanding of science, not from what the scientific studies actually try to achieve. It seems like the usual post-modernist twisting of science that operates from naive assumptions of scientific attitudes and understandings.I am actually quite well read on the philosophy of science and postmodernism. I am a scientific realist and a Marxist, not a postmodernist, and feel your friend is being quite careless in the way he throws around these labels. One does not need to be a postmodernist to believe that some science is ideologically motivated and methodologically unsound. The problem with this science is that it assumes the existence of a discrete phenomenon called sexual orientation, then tries to ferret out how such an orientation might be rooted in human biology. We're not talking about a scientist studying the behavior of a particle, or a zoologist studying the behavior of a lion, or even a sociologist studying the behavior of groups of young minority women. Scientists are literally breathing metaphysical life in the concept of "sexual orientation" without the slightest consideration for whether this "orientation" is a physically real, rather than just socially real, phenomenon that can be investigated via the physical sciences.


Edit: I've read Foucault, Sedgwick, and Butler so I'm familiar with these criticisms. I think your friend might need to read them more closely, and remember that not all people who see value in some of what they say is a "postmodernist."

[Princess Luna]

While i have no doubt that some people are born gay , i think it is possible to "become" gay (or at least bisexual ) in away , take for example the fact that every pre-Christian Roman emperor had a male lover , also i read on Wikipedia ( which isn't the most reliable source so correct me if i am wrong) that almost all intimate relationships in Ancient Sparta were same-sex due to the fact that men would only see their wives for a few days a year , and would generally spent most of that time trying to get them pregnant.

[Lucretia]

While i have no doubt that some people are born gay.

Are you also sure that some people are born with a foot fetish, or with inclinations to vorarephilia? What makes you so sure?

[Princess Luna]

Are you also sure that some people are born with a foot fetish, or with inclinations to vorarephilia? What makes you so sure?
they very well could i'm not a professer of sexual psychology , but i can tell you this if homosexuality is completely a choice , then explain why homosexuals exist in countrys were they can be executed?

[Jimmie Higgins]

they very well could i'm not a professer of sexual psychology , but i can tell you this if homosexuality is completely a choice , then explain why homosexuals exist in countrys were they can be executed?1. I don't think people argue it's necessarily a conscious or deliberate choice.

It's for sick reasons, but the christian brainwashing camp type stuff shows that sometimes people do consciously decide their sexuality... at least people who aren't coerced by bigoted relatives:(

2. Why would people practice banned religions? Repressed sexual practices just cause their practitioners to go underground just like when religions and political groups are repressed. But love is more believable than gods and sex is more fun than politics. Religions die out and ideologies fall into the dustbin of history, but there'll always be gay, straight, bi, polyamerous, masturbatory, and monogamous love and sometimes an orgy.

3. Why would there be plays and novels and songs all about people risking their lives for love?

3. Sadly, repression does work to a certain degree. It can't eliminate something as basic and natural as a mutual attraction or sexual desire, but it can cause people to be too scared to act on their desires. It can also prevent the creation of social networks necessary for building up ways for people to peruse the relationships they want.

[Summerspeaker]

In a reasonable society, people would just engage in whatever sex acts they felt like with other people. The whole concept of sexual orientation and the associated identity politics only have positive meaning as opposition to straight dude supremacy.

[gorillafuck]

The whole concept of sexual orientation and the associated identity politics only have positive meaning as opposition to straight dude supremacy.Except no, because some people don't want to have sex with the same sex and some don't want to have sex with the opposite sex, hence sexual orientation.

[Summerspeaker]

Except no, because some people don't want to have sex with the same sex and some don't want to have sex with the opposite sex, hence sexual orientation.

The concept is unnecessary and harmful, not to mention murky in practice. Why bother? As long as everybody simply engages in sex acts with folks they want to engage in sex acts with we should be all cool. But that could only happen during the revolution that never ends.

[gorillafuck]

The concept is unnecessary and harmful, not to mention murky in practice.
It's convenient because if someone is not interested in a certain sex then it will be known. What's inconvenient and "murky" in practice is if someone doesn't identify as heterosexual but is openly only attracted to the opposite sex, or is only attracted to the same sex but refuses to identify as homosexual.


Why bother? As long as everybody simply engages in sex acts with folks they want to engage in sex acts with we should be all cool.
That doesn't necessarily mean that sexual orientation is abolished. In fact, as far as an actual analysis on sexual identity and orientation, that means diddly squat.

[Dimentio]

And if it was a choice?

Would not consenting adults have the same rights to same-sex relationships then?

[Summerspeaker]

It's convenient because if someone is not interested in a certain sex then it will be known.

That's not terribly useful given the costs. The traditional sexual orientations reinforce the profoundly oppressive gender binary.


What's inconvenient and "murky" in practice is if someone doesn't identify as heterosexual but is only attracted to the opposite sex, or is only attracted to the same sex but refuses to identify as homosexual.:confused: Yikes. In an effort to suppress my outrage at pressuring folks into boxes, I'll address the practical aspects. Nobody actually knows who they'll be sexually attracted to in the future. It doesn't matter what you claim today or claimed yesterday. I've seen this happen over and over again.

The identities you recommend likely only came into existence recently. Heterosexuality in particular exists to marginalize queers like me. You can't casually recode it into a neutral descriptive label. The terms has a hundred years of weighty baggage hanging from it.

[gorillafuck]

That's not terribly useful given the costs. The traditional sexual orientations reinforce the profoundly oppressive gender binary.Sex and gender aren't the same thing. I would think that you would know that.


:confused: Yikes. In an effort to suppress my outrage at pressuring folks into boxes, I'll address the practical aspects.If by pressuring folks into boxes you mean wanting people to accept their own sexuality then I don't care how mad you are because I'm not trying to box anyone up.


Nobody actually knows who they'll be sexually attracted to in the future. It doesn't matter what you claim today or claimed yesterday. I've seen this happen over and over again.Yeah except that certain peoples brains work where they specifically like a certain sex/set of genitalia.


The identities you recommend likely only came into existence recently.evidenceevidenceevidence.


Heterosexuality in particular exists to marginalize queers like me.You'll need to back that up.

I'd say it exists as a term for the sexuality of people who are attracted to the opposite sex.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The identities you recommend likely only came into existence recently.Yes, I think we have to look at the concept of sexuality in historical and social context. Until basically the late-victorian age there wasn't even a classification of a type of person who was primarily attracted to people of the same sex. "Homosexual" acts by people have always been around to some degree, but the conception of a category of someone who is "homosexual" or "heterosexual" didn't exist in medical or academic or popular knowledge is only a little more than 100 years ago.



evidenceevidenceevidence.

To my knowledge most pre-industrial era "buggery laws" were not specifically aimed groups of people but behaviors and "buggery" was grouped with other non-productive sex acts often including heterosexual anal intercourse. It wasn't until more recent times that anti-gay laws and oppression has become more about a repressing groups of people and restricting their rights rather than controlling a specific behavior.

[Technocrat]

To me, the idea of sexual orientation being nothing more than a choice allows too many homophobic and religious criticisms open as a legitimate discussion, somehow. Fact of the matter, though, is that there's tons of more evidence towards genetic predetermining (or possibly predisposition) of sexual orientation, rather than the odd idea that we simply chose to be either gay, straight, or bi.

In fact, there's been over 1500 animal species studied where none showed the absence of homosexual behavior.

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20718
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexuality#Homosexual_behaviour

So are we really going to logically state that animals actually "choose" to be homosexual or straight? lol

Want more?

"The role of genetics in male sexual orientation was investigated by pedigree and linkage analyses on 114 families of homosexual men. Increased rates of same-sex orientation were found in the maternal uncles and male cousins of these subjects, but not in their fathers or paternal relatives, suggesting the possibility of sex-linked transmission in a portion of the population. DNA linkage analysis of a selected group of 40 families in which there were two gay brothers and no indication of nonmaternal transmission revealed a correlation between homosexual orientation and the inheritance of polymorphic markers on the X chromosome in approximately 64 percent of the sib-pairs tested. The linkage to markers on Xq28, the subtelomeric region of the long arm of the sex chromosome, had a multipoint lod score of 4.0 (P = 10(-5), indicating a statistical confidence level of more than 99 percent that at least one subtype of male sexual orientation is genetically influenced."http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/261/5119/321

"The Darwinian paradox of male homosexuality in humans is examined, i.e. if male homosexuality has a genetic component and homosexuals reproduce less than heterosexuals, then why is this trait maintained in the population? In a sample of 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men and their relatives (a total of over 4600 individuals), we found that female maternal relatives of homosexuals have higher fecundity than female maternal relatives of heterosexuals and that this difference is not found in female paternal relatives. The study confirms previous reports, in particular that homosexuals have more maternal than paternal male homosexual relatives, that homosexual males are more often later-born than first–born and that they have more older brothers than older sisters. We discuss the findings and their implications for current research on male homosexuality."http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/271/1554/2217.full.pdf+html

"Homosexual male probands with monozygotic cotwins, dizygotic cotwins, or adoptive brothers were recruited using homophile publications. Sexual orientation of relatives was assessed either by asking relatives directly, or when this was impossible, asking the probands. Of the relatives whose sexual orientation could be rated, 52% (29/56) of monozygotic cotwins, 22% (12/54) of dizygotic cotwins, and 11% (6/57) of adoptive brothers were homosexual. Heritabilities were substantial under a wide range of assumptions about the population base rate of homosexuality and ascertainment bias"http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=5184312

"We examined data from a large cohort of homosexual and heterosexual females and males concerning their siblings' sexual orientations. As in previous studies, both male and female homosexuality were familial. Homosexual females had an excess of homosexual brothers compared to heteroxual subjects, thus providing evidence that similar familial factors influence both male and female homosexuality. Furthermore, despite the large sample size, homosexual females and males did not differ significantly from each other in their proportions of either homosexual sisters or homosexual brothers. Thus, results were most consistent with the possibility that similar familial factors influence male and female sexual orientation.

We also examined whether some parental influences comprised shared environmental effects on sexual orientation. Scales attempting to measure such influences failed to distinguish subjects with homosexual siblings from subjects with only heterosexual siblings and, thus, did not appear to measure shared environmental determinants of sexual orientation."http://www.springerlink.com/content/k7w03624953x255l/

In research done on fruit flies, playing with the genes of a fruit fly can alter it's sexual orientation. Pretty compelling evidence that genes control sexual orientation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/03/science/03cell.html

[Hoplite]

The argument for it being a choice makes very little sense when you ask why on earth anyone would make that choice.

Why would anyone choose to be part of a minority for which they may be ostracized from their families and friends, fired from jobs, yelled at in the streets, or even attacked?

What on earth would someone gain from making that choice?

[The Vegan Marxist]

The argument for it being a choice makes very little sense when you ask why on earth anyone would make that choice.

Why would anyone choose to be part of a minority for which they may be ostracized from their families and friends, fired from jobs, yelled at in the streets, or even attacked?

What on earth would someone gain from making that choice?

Exactly. Homosexuality has been accounted for for many, many centuries. And today's century is the closest homosexuality's been to being accepted by society. Before, it was extremely dangerous to gay or bisexual. The logic that a society built under the conditioning of being extremely anti-homosexuality can produce conditioned individuals with the free-will choice of being gay or bi doesn't make sense whatsoever.

Throughout each newly conditioned periods of time, homosexuality (along with heterosexuality) have remained the same. So for the idea that homosexuality is a conditioned choice, it doesn't make sense on a materialist level.

[TC]

I understand the political necessity for hammering away at the simple "homosexuals were born that way its a natural thing there is no choice" line, and effectively equating sexual orientation with race or sex...

We have a culture where the thinking is that you can't be blamed for something you were born with and you can be blamed for your choices.

But this is just not accurate for a few reasons.

1. You don't choose to be attracted to/turned on by someone, but you do choose how to act in response to it. Ignoring it is a choice. Its a choice that may make your life an incomplete, unhappy one, but plenty of heterosexuals have incomplete, unhappy sex/romantic lives.

2. You don't choose to be attracted to/turned on by a group of people, but you choose how to characterize those feelings socially. Homosexuality (and heterosexuality) as a concept is not eternal but a category that, like race, was invented: Foucault, himself openly gay, described in the history of sexuality how homosexuality was only conceived of a few hundred years ago.

3. Animals aren't gay. No, they're not, except for penguins, if penguins thought in terms of concepts like sexual orientation. What you see in the wild is not "gay animals" who exclusively form long term pair bonds with members of the same sex like humans do. Instead you see opportunitstic same sex sexual behavior, where animals will often mate with members of either sex, and do not express consistent same sex preferences. This is closer to the behavior of heterosexual prisoners in single sex prisons than the behavior of gay people. It would be ridiculous to think that episodic same sex acts 'make' someone gay when episodic opposite sex acts don't 'make' someone straight - anymore than thinking one drop of black blood makes someone black but a drop of white blood doesn't make someone white.

4. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are identities that society constructed that people have to actively assert in order for them to be applied to them. How much same-sex fantasy is necessary before you're gay? How much same-sex contact is necessary before you're gay? How much fantasy or contact is necessary before you're straight? Well the answer is of course that its not based on anything like desires or behavior, it is based on self-assertion, and self-assertion is chosen. It might be a choice that makes a profound amount of sense and allows one to live a meaningful life compatible with someone's desires - but still a choice.

5. Sexual orientation is not so conveniently genetic as we'd like it to be. It is for example, much less genetic than race or sex. Identical twins (not fraternal twins) will always come out the same sex, and the same skin color, with the same facial bone structure and hair type (which is how people recognize race: a social construct based around the interpretation of geographic phenotype clines). On the other hand identical twins will not necessarily have the same sexual orientation - they are more likely to have the same sexual orientation than fraternal twins, but are still only something like 50% likely to be gay if their identical twin is gay. This strongly suggests that there is a genetic influence but not genetic determination. It might be that you're not born gay in the same way you're not born fat or smart, but rather born with a tendency towards being gay or being fat or smart.

6. Desires are not fixed and immutable. People can actually choose both deliberately and indirectly to influence their desires, and people's circumstances influence their desires. There is the 'sour grapes' effect where people are more likely to want what is available than what is unavailable, and the 'endowment effect' were people are more likely to want what they already have than what they do not even if they can trade the one for the other. What one's peers like and want influences what we want and this applies as much to sexual desires as any other since what is sexually attractive is also subject to trends and fashions. People like what they associate with positive things. Sometimes people even just want to want something enough that they end up wanting it. I have no idea what mechanisms or examples might be relevant to sexual orientation, but only to say that the mere fact of desire does not make it a natural or fixed thing.

7. Sexual orientation is not obviously fixed and immutable. Lots of people appear to change sexual desires once or several times over their lifetime. Think of how many female celebrities and actresses this is true of - people who went from being exclusively involved with men to exclusively involved
with women, and sometimes back again. We don't see this as often with men but its not obvious is thats because (as the myth? goes) male sexual orientation is more fixed, or whether the stigma is just greater and the social costs of flipping much higher. It also seems rather ridiculous to claim, arbitrarily, that its a genuine real sexual orientation when they're 'gay' but when they're 'straight' they are closeted or faking it - that is in essence adopting the fundamentalist anti-gay christians line but applying it in reverse.


What does it mean if homosexuality is not some fixed-in-nature no-choice-in-the-matter phenomena? Well, that depends on whether or not you think that homosexuality is, were it a choice, an equally valid choice, or a bad choice.

As leftists we think, even if it was purely a random and strangely inconvenient choice (and whatever it is, it isn't just a choice anymore than it is just the way you are born - neither is accurate) - it is a morally neutral one that is just as valid as heterosexuality. It is when we insist that it is not and cannot be in any way influenced by people's deliberate thoughts feelings, environment, upbringing, social constructs and conceptions and actions - that we concede to the rightwingers their homophobic belief that if it were a choice it would be a bad choice. Moreover its not obvious that turning it into some natural thing is going to stop rightwing homophobia: lots of things are natural and undesirable and should be stopped from spreading. If homosexuality isn't a "bad choice" to the rightwingers than it just becomes a "disease" to them. How does that advance the cause of equal rights for gay people?


Ask yourself this too: does something being an accident of birth rather than a more deeply complex and partially chosen thing, make it more satisfying or a better identity? I don't think so, especially because if you think about it in this case, having a sizable gay population is, if we think about it objectively, good for society. Having alternatives to patriarchal family structures undermines those structures primacy and by having a population not subjected to them it also enables greater gender equality in the public sphere by introducing a greater number of independent or mutually-equally-inter-dependent women, and more options for how to live and organize ones life generally increases the chances of being happy.