homosexuality is not 'unnatural'

Re: homosexuality is not 'unnatural'


I am unaware of any known genetic source for sexuality, heterosexual or homosexual. Do you have any links to unbiased on line sources to back up your claim?

Here's one piece of evidence, quoted from this web page: http://salmon.psy.plym.ac.uk/year2/Sexbehav.htm



If homosexuality was as genetic as hair-colour, for example, then the concordance rate would be 100% for identical twins - so clearly environmental factors must play a part. But the evidence still implies a genetic basis for homosexuality, making it a natural phenomenon.

Argote, you'll just lead the other side to call homesexuals mutants.

If the best statistic that can be found is 55% than environmental factors would seem to be of overriding significance.

Well, no. 52% would suggest genetics is the overriding factor with environmental factors having a very heavy influence (52% is, after all, more than half).

Of course, an observant individual might notice that homosexuality/homosexual behavior has been with humans since the start of recorded history (probably longer, but we couldn't prove that without the aid of time travel). They might also notice its existence in the animal kingdom. Both observations would be terribly strange if homosexuality was unnatural.

I think it's dangerous to argue this point at all. It gives it legs.

Side: Acquiunk, you are an anthropologist; is that right?

I remember when I learning about LGBT culture; they put a lot of emphasise on CULTURE. In cultures where you can be ostracized or killed even for being anything but straight; LGBT are almost non-represented. Or we are witches, prostitutes, etc.
In other cultures, they have all kinds of evidence that they existed. In some cultures it was celebrated and there was a special place for these people. That seems the smartest thing I've ever heard to 'deal' with the fact that we exist!
Anytime this topic comes up I think of the idea of "twin spirits". That is simply the coolest thing I had ever heard!

Anything that happens in the natural world is a 'natural phenomenon.' I don't mean to play any semantic game there, but it seems people tend to confuse the word 'natural' with the word 'normal' or 'customary'. Of course homosexuality is natural.

It is not culture but the 52 % for the identical twin studies that bothers me. That is nearly random (50/50 chance) which make genetics an unlikely source as both twins get exactly the same set of genes . If it were 95% I would consider that a strong indicator of a genetic link.

52% as compared to about 10% for non-twin biological brothers and unrelated adoptive brothers, and 22% for non-identical twins. Let's put it another way: if two brothers are identical twins and one is gay, the other brother is five times more likely to be gay than if the two brothers were simply biological brothers or adoptive brothers, and more than twice as likely if the two brothers were non-identical twins.

50% is only random in a 50/50 scenario--where there are two equally likely outcomes. Since homosexuals (defined as those who prefer sexual congress with the same sex, not simply those who have participated in such activity) make up only a small percentage of even those populations where being homosexual bears no stigma, we can logically infer that a person has only a small chance of being homosexual (the largest number I've heard is 10%). Thus 52% in this case is far from random.

It isn't if they are both raised in the same cultural environment. If this were a study of twins separated at birth, or very early in life it might have some relevance. But simply to say that if one twin is homosexual there is a 52 % chance of the other being homosexual and therefore the sources is genetic is statistically meaningless. This does not mean that there might not be a genetic source for homosexuality. The cited source provides no such evidence, and I have sen no such evidence presented elsewhere. The entire issue of human sexuality and its genetic links is at present poorly understood.

You're misunderstanding those statistics. What's important is that the concordance rate amongst identical twins is significantly higher than that amongst fraternal twins. It doesn't matter if it's only 52% - what's important is that it's over twice the rate for fraternal twins. Twin studies are very common when scientists want to know if a trait has a genetic basis.

If environmental factors had no bearing on sexuality, then of course we would expect a much higher concordance rate amongst identical twins. But the evidence we have suggests that susceptibility to become homosexual is genetically based. It's like schizophrenia - we know now that there are genes that make you susceptible to schizophrenia, but only some of the people with those genes will actually develop the disease. Environmental factors, such as whether you smoke cannabis at a young age, can alter the probability that those genes will take effect and you will develop the disease - and the above study suggests that the same goes for homosexuality.

A person's genes may make them susceptible to homosexuality, and then environmental factors may determine whether they become homosexual.

I should be clear that I'm not suggesting that homosexuality is a disease, though. It makes no sense to call it a disease if it doesn't cause the person distress or harm or whatever. Often homosexual people do suffer, and wish they were straight - but I think that's due to societal pressures, rather than due to homosexuality being some kind of illness.

You can't ignore the evidence I cited - it basically proves that homosexuality isn't merely an environmental thing - something like an overprotective mother might influence a person's sexuality, but there also has to be soem biological influence.

When a diagnoses of schizophrenia is made it is now possible to point to a single or set of anomalous alleles that are likely contributors to the condition. No such statement can be made for homosexuality
Also identical twines are alike in many ways which are not attributed to a genetic source and can easily be explained by social (environmental) pressures. For example they are often dressed alike, people tend to treat them as if they were the same individual, to give but two examples.

With the recent major advance in our understanding of the human genom there is a increasing tendency to attribute behaviors, particularly anomalous behaviors to genetic causes. This is not new, "it's in the blood" has long been an explanation or excuse for behavior. For an example of how this works in more traditional societies see Susan Parman "Scottish Crofters: A Historical Ethnography of a Celtic Village" (2003) One exampe, second sight - the ability to foresee the future

"Persons who have the ability are said to have inherited it. 'I inherited to ability to predict events through dreams from my mother' said one man. As one would expect in bilateral kinship systems, the ability can be inherited through either the mother's or father's side" (2003:156).

As sexuality is linked directly with the way we as a species reproduce I do not doubt that the behavior has a genetic basis. But we as a species are much more complex that a simple one to one correlation of gene to behavior. And even if that link could be established I fail to see how a gene could distinguish gender.

There is probably a combination of both genetics and environmental conditions.

That is why the concordance rate for identical twins is compared to that for fraternal twins and other siblings. The assumption is that fraternal twins are reared similarly to identical twins. This isn't such a wild assumption to make. A greater concordance of a trait for identical twins than fraternal twins implies a genetic basis for the trait. The genetic research into homosexuality may not have reached the stage where we can identify any specific alleles, but that has no bearing on whether we can be sure that homosexuality is determined to some extent, and in some way, by genes. We might not yet know the precise details of what alleles make a person susceptible to homosexuality, but the evidence suggests that we can be confident that genes do play a significant part in some way.

Just to say that , while it's an interesting topic to debate, i don't see why it matters. Homosexual activity doesn't hurt anybody. Even if there was no genetic predisposition, I don't see it should be considered wrong. At least, they are less likely to contribute to overpopulation.

I don't think that this thread is homophobic, but feel a rant coming on anyhow because a) rants are good AND b) this issue should be seen in perspective. So , here it goes :

People can change, but usually shouldn't.

I think that there is some degree of genetic predisposition to homosexuality, but it isn't so strong that you couldn't convert gay people into breeders ( gasp in awe at my grasp of teh vocabulary ;P) , although I don't see why you should. There is nothing wrong with being gay. Even if teh genetic predisposition to homosexuality is greater than any of the experts thought it was (say about 80 or 90 percent) it would still be possible to turn them straight (at least to outward appearences) , using behaviouralist techniques.

I have been solitary all my life, and think in many ways this is like being gay. I like being alone and i get bored easily in crowds. I have always been happy and productive on my own. Part of the reason that i am this way is ilkely to do with my in born temperament and possibly the envirionment i was in when i was a baby. Yet all my childhood, the adults around me spent their time convincing me that i would be happier and lead a more fulfilling life if i was more outgoing. I have been made to feel guilty about this, like i would be better, more interesting and more stable if i was more outgoing, and i was even given assistance to prevent me being so "withdrawn" , even though nobody even bothered about the areas where i really needed help ( like, for instance , how i had taught myself most of the work years and years beforehand, or my dyslexia) . Yet, despite all this "help", i still felt sick and bored when
I was with other people , and happy and focused when I was alone. Even these days, when i go home, my mother is constantly on my back that i would be a better person if i went out more.

Regardless of why people are the way they are, whether it is inborn or the result of environment, trying to change them is just stupid and pointless. People are who they are, it wuold just be better for everybody if the people who go thinking that everybody should be the same would just work on changing themselves, rather than trying to change other people. Everybody would automatically be a lot stressed, people wouldn't be encouraged to hate themselves just because they have trouble conforming to other people's expectations or beliefs, and people would stop handling me pamphlets about how i'm going to hell ( a gentle ;P to all the religious folk).

Ok, the rant is over. Here is my other thought.

Like i have already stated at length, i don't think that in a situation like a homosexual relationship where nobody is being hurt, people should try to change themselves. However, there are instances where people's sexual preferences do hurt other people, and in these instances,people can and should have control over there actions and sexuality, regardless of genetic or environmental predisposition. The best example would probably be paedophilia . Even if these people had a very strong genetic or environmental predisposition to molest children, they have a moral obligation to do everything they can to prevent them from doing so.

Its always good to be a little careful when analysing twin studies , though, because any possible psychological trait you can think of is dependent on both nature and nurture, and the extent to which both of them are important depends on the situation.

For the neglected Romanian orphans , for example, deprivation played a much more important role in their retarded development and autistic behaviours (in the vast majority of cases) than genetics, while for a well nourished westerner with a high SES and competent parents , autistic behaviours would most likely be most strongly influenced by genetics.

Although most westerners are provided good physical nourishment and appropriate handling, there is still great variety in different families attitudes towards homosexuality, and the way child is raised.

With regards to the study, it would have been better if researchers had also included identical twins raised separately. Monozygotic twins tend to be treated more similarly than dizygotic twins ( especially if one of the non-identical twins happens to be butt ugly - studies have shown that parents and teachers do notice these things ) , but the concurrence rate of 52 % for identical twins still seems like good evidence that there is a genetic component to homosexuality.

Just reading and rolling my eyes.

Indeed.

It is not possible to justify or condemn something based on its "naturality."

The fact that something exists suggests that the certain something exists in nature. "Natural" or "unnatural" arguments are vague.