What are the biological and environmental determinants for sexual orientation?

[Dawnofhope]

I thought it would be interesting to examine what science tells us about sexual orientation and its determinants. In some ways its a nature vs nurture discussion. We need to consider biological factors such as genetics and prenatal development along with environmental factors such as upbringing and culture.

Its an area that’s highly controversial in many circles. Attitudes about homosexuality have been identified as being a complete or significant block to engaging with Christianity for 47% of New Zealanders in a recent study of over 1000 participants.

https://nzfaithandbeliefstudy.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/faith-and-belief-full-report-may-2018.pdf

The figures are less for people over 65 years of age but between 40-50% of those under 65 years. Regardless attitudes about homosexuality are the largest identifiable block amongst the 1000+ people surveyed.

There are a number of faiths where homosexual behaviour or particular acts are seen as immoral or a sin. They include Catholicism, conservative Christianity, Islam, the Baha’i Faith and some branches of Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism and no doubt many other faith traditions as well. The other side of the coin is increasing numbers of faiths that are LBGTQ+ affirming.

So what does science tell us about the determinants of homosexuality with reference to reputable research and scientific papers?

Thanks in advance for your considered thoughts.

 

[sun rise]

So what does science tell us about the determinants of homosexuality with reference to reputable research and scientific papers?

The large number of animals that have homosexuality is explored in a number of papers. Here's just one: https://phys.org/news/2019-05-scientists-explore-evolution-animal-homosexuality.html

This wikipedia page is a good starting point as well Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I thought it would be interesting to examine what science tells us about sexual orientation and its determinants. In some ways its a nature vs nurture discussion. We need to consider biological factors such as genetics and prenatal development along with environmental factors such as upbringing and culture.

Its an area that’s highly controversial in many circles. Attitudes about homosexuality have been identified as being a complete or significant block to engaging with Christianity for 47% of New Zealanders in a recent study of over 1000 participants.

https://nzfaithandbeliefstudy.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/faith-and-belief-full-report-may-2018.pdf

The figures are less for people over 65 years of age but between 40-50% of those under 65 years. Regardless attitudes about homosexuality are the largest identifiable block amongst the 1000+ people surveyed.

There are a number of faiths where homosexual behaviour or particular acts are seen as immoral or a sin. They include Catholicism, conservative Christianity, Islam, the Baha’i Faith and some branches of Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism and no doubt many other faith traditions as well. The other side of the coin is increasing numbers of faiths that are LBGTQ+ affirming.

So what does science tell us about the determinants of homosexuality with reference to reputable research and scientific papers?

Thanks in advance for your considered thoughts.

There's a lot of good studies on academic sites like PublicMed and Jstor. If you have a public library or via your job access to a good amount, I'd think you'd like. Here's something that caught my eye Genetics and Male Sexual Orientation on JSTOR I don't know how/if I can post PDF files since that's how I get them from the sites through my college.

I'll contribute more later. My thoughts is to take away the homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality, etc and focus on attraction-the nature of it, biology, psychology (which I'm sure you're familiar?), emotional, and spiritual (give or take?) rather than one's particular sex (which you can add a curve ball since not everyone is born with one sex so genetics are fluid rather than static).

Evolutionary wise, behavior has a lot to do with attraction in and of itself. We are attracted to other people and sometimes our bodies and minds react to other people that we are attracted to. The body doesn't have morals. So, I guess you can say it's almost animal like?

The bias really has to do with dividing sexuality. "Study of homosexuality" is no different than studying heterosexuality because it's the same body, mind, and mode of attraction which isn't dependent on the stimuli evolved. It's kind of like studying and treating depression by looking at the trigger and not the psychological and "physiological" causes of depression. For example, some people handle stress easier than others (of course). So, when someone has a headache, we can get rid of the stresser or we can give the person an Advil.

Same concept of sexual orientation. We can study sexual orientation (the physiological cause) or the trigger (the sex of the other). Both are interesting to study; but, I think we're doing it backwards.

I can't comment too much on XXs and XYs and all. I do believe that sexual orientation is part environmental in that we don't just fall in love or have sex with the people we like (well, guys more than girls??). Based on our cultures, we tend to gravitate to people who are like us in one respect or another. As for the sex, I honestly believe that's irrelevant to understanding attraction genetics.

Anyway... I know there are a lot of resources. I'll try to think of a few off the top of my head. Happy conversing.

Genetics and Male Sexual Orientation on JSTOR
WHO | Gender and Genetics

 

[Windwalker]

Its an area that’s highly controversial in many circles. Attitudes about homosexuality have been identified as being a complete or significant block to engaging with Christianity for 47% of New Zealanders in a recent study of over 1000 participants.

Data and reason often can be controversial to traditionalism, which bases its ideas on premodern systems of prophets and priests and the village witch doctors who speculate based upon mythic models of reality. So naturally, science which out-contextualizes these systems creates "controversy" to those premodern systems. The controversy however, is not between the systems, but only within traditionalism itself grappling with the information that modern systems of knowledge present for its consideration.

The figures are less for people over 65 years of age but between 40-50% of those under 65 years. Regardless attitudes about homosexuality are the largest identifiable block amongst the 1000+ people surveyed.

Which underscores my point. It is purely cultural in nature, running up against the empirical systems of modernity. In a world which tries to model reality without the more sophisticated tools of modernity, you end up with "voices of authority", to take its place, such as the prophet or the oracle, the "messenger" as it were. Which is really just a premodern attempt to create an authority of knowledge. It's a premodern epistimological answer to uncertainty. "God says so".

There are a number of faiths where homosexual behaviour or particular acts are seen as immoral or a sin. They include Catholicism, conservative Christianity, Islam, the Baha’i Faith and some branches of Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism and no doubt many other faith traditions as well. The other side of the coin is increasing numbers of faiths that are LBGTQ+ affirming.

All of this has to do with religious premodern systems trying to come to terms with modernity. Some do better with that than others. They call these progressive and conservative. Conservative, being much more premodern traditionalist leaning, than progressives.

So what does science tell us about the determinants of homosexuality with reference to reputable research and scientific papers?

Thanks in advance for your considered thoughts.

I think there is a great deal of information out there about this which pretty much makes it clear that it is common place in nature outside our species at the same percentages you see among us. That says that all the rest is based on premodern systems of understanding reality. It's not really a controversy at all, except for those trying to make sense of their traditionalist teachings in light of modern science and knowledge.

 

[stvdv]

The large number of animals that have homosexuality is explored in a number of papers.

I would not look what animals do, to see if I should do it, when it comes to the question homosex or heterosex.

Because humans, in general, are further developed than animals; similar, I would also not set my standard of behavior according to a 4 year old (unless it's maybe a Buddha reborn, much further developed than I am)

Of course, after I made up my mind about it, then I could watch animals, and learn for example not to judge myself or feel guilty or judge others, or stay faithful for life like a swan etc. Many animals can "teach" us great lessons.

 

[wellwisher]

The irony is atheism and liberalism believe in evolution, over creation. Evolution is about genetic changes that are passed forward by sexual reproduction and then selected by nature.

However, not all sexual orientations can pass forward genes, since they are backwards or upside down with respect to reproduction. Only male plus female can make babies and participate in evolution as defined by science.

If you do the math the infinite sexual orientations of liberalism is connected to a type of creationism, and not evolution, since most cannot pass forward genes, if they stays true to their perturbation. The net affect is this is a type of creationism, induced by culture, but not by nature. This is why you are bullied, if you do not go along with the programming. If it was natural it would not need so much political manipulation and forced conformity.

To me, it is no different from the fads of body piercing, or body art both of which change the body, willfully, artificially and superficially, into something else, apart from internal DNA. It is also apart from something able to transfer forward via DNA. It is a type of man made creationism with man playing God. On the the 13 day god-,man created infinite sexes.

I can accept these choices since we are free moral agents. However, I can't accept this being sold and peddled as being based on nature, since it does not work if we leave out all the man made and artificial stuff ,and only allow future propagation to occur via the DNA. It is reinforced cult based on a type of free market fantasy creationism.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I found this article reasonable and rather informative:

Stop calling it a choice: Biological factors drive homosexuality

 

[ChristineM]

The irony is atheism and liberalism believe in evolution, over creation. Evolution is about genetic changes that are passed forward by sexual reproduction and then selected by nature.

However, not all sexual orientations can pass forward genes, since they are backwards or upside down with respect to reproduction. Only male plus female can make babies and participate in evolution as defined by science.

If you do the math the infinite sexual orientations of liberalism is connected to a type of creationism, and not evolution, since most cannot pass forward genes, if they stays true to their perturbation. The net affect is this is a type of creationism, induced by culture, but not by nature. This is why you are bullied, if you do not go along with the programming. If it was natural it would not need so much political manipulation and forced conformity.

To me, it is no different from the fads of body piercing, or body art both of which change the body, willfully, artificially and superficially, into something else, apart from internal DNA. It is also apart from something able to transfer forward via DNA. It is a type of man made creationism with man playing God. On the the 13 day god-,man created infinite sexes.

I can accept these choices since we are free moral agents. However, I can't accept this being sold and peddled as being based on nature, since it does not work if we leave out all the man made and artificial stuff ,and only allow future propagation to occur via the DNA. It is reinforced cult based on a type of free market fantasy creationism.

 

[Vinayaka]

I found this article reasonable and rather informative:

Stop calling it a choice: Biological factors drive homosexuality

I'm with you. For me, there is no debate. It's all nature. Of course others are free to make it into a debate. I think that it is classical projecting, based on the inability to believe that another person might be wired differently than you.

 

[ChristineM]

The irony is atheism and liberalism believe in evolution, over creation. Evolution is about genetic changes that are passed forward by sexual reproduction and then selected by nature.

However, not all sexual orientations can pass forward genes, since they are backwards or upside down with respect to reproduction. Only male plus female can make babies and participate in evolution as defined by science.

If you do the math the infinite sexual orientations of liberalism is connected to a type of creationism, and not evolution, since most cannot pass forward genes, if they stays true to their perturbation. The net affect is this is a type of creationism, induced by culture, but not by nature. This is why you are bullied, if you do not go along with the programming. If it was natural it would not need so much political manipulation and forced conformity.

To me, it is no different from the fads of body piercing, or body art both of which change the body, willfully, artificially and superficially, into something else, apart from internal DNA. It is also apart from something able to transfer forward via DNA. It is a type of man made creationism with man playing God. On the the 13 day god-,man created infinite sexes.

I can accept these choices since we are free moral agents. However, I can't accept this being sold and peddled as being based on nature, since it does not work if we leave out all the man made and artificial stuff ,and only allow future propagation to occur via the DNA. It is reinforced cult based on a type of free market fantasy creationism.

Homosexual behavior in animals is sexual behavior among non-human species that is interpreted as homosexual or bisexual. This may include same-sex sexual activity, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting among same-sex animal pairs.[1][2][3] Various forms of this are found in every major geographic region and every major animal group.
Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia

And not an atheist or liberal among them

 

[ChristineM]

I'm with you. For me, there is no debate. It's all nature. Of course others are free to make it into a debate. I think that it is classical projecting, based on the inability to believe that another person might be wired differently than you.

The Kinsey scale along with other studies consider around 14% of the population to be completely heterosexual, the remaining 86% are to some degree homosexual.

Perhaps those who protest loudest are those whose religion, politics, social beliefs cannot accept that they have at least some sexual learning towards the same sex.

 

[ecco]

In some ways its a nature vs nurture discussion.

So what does science tell us about the determinants of homosexuality with reference to reputable research and scientific papers?

On the one hand you seem to be asking about science, on the other you state beliefs.

Are you looking for actual scientific knowledge? Then this is the wrong place. If you are looking for a discussion, why didn't you just say so?

 

[shmogie]

Data and reason often can be controversial to traditionalism, which bases its ideas on premodern systems of prophets and priests and the village witch doctors who speculate based upon mythic models of reality. So naturally, science which out-contextualizes these systems creates "controversy" to those premodern systems. The controversy however, is not between the systems, but only within traditionalism itself grappling with the information that modern systems of knowledge present for its consideration.


Which underscores my point. It is purely cultural in nature, running up against the empirical systems of modernity. In a world which tries to model reality without the more sophisticated tools of modernity, you end up with "voices of authority", to take its place, such as the prophet or the oracle, the "messenger" as it were. Which is really just a premodern attempt to create an authority of knowledge. It's a premodern epistimological answer to uncertainty. "God says so".


All of this has to do with religious premodern systems trying to come to terms with modernity. Some do better with that than others. They call these progressive and conservative. Conservative, being much more premodern traditionalist leaning, than progressives.


I think there is a great deal of information out there about this which pretty much makes it clear that it is common place in nature outside our species at the same percentages you see among us. That says that all the rest is based on premodern systems of understanding reality. It's not really a controversy at all, except for those trying to make sense of their traditionalist teachings in light of modern science and knowledge.

What science is there that represents a consensus view of the reasons for homosexuality ?

There is none.

In speaking of modernity, the social concept of homosexuality as being a the result of inherent natural processes, though not proven, is true because the "modern" person wants it so.

What ducks or penguins do are obviously not human behaviors.

There have ALWAYS been humans who operate outside the rules of the tribe, or the laws of a society, some criminal justice advocates say criminal behavior is inherent in the person. A percentage of us are born to be criminals.

I am not equating homosexuality to criminality, I am associating the thinking some have about possible causes of human behaviors.

So, the presupposed notion is that homosexual behavior is some how inherent in the person. Therefore, it is.

Yet contrary to this "modern" view, the science is not there to support it. There are various ideas, many hypotheses, but no firmly established theory.,

 

[ecco]

The irony is atheism and liberalism believe in evolution, over creation. Evolution is about genetic changes that are passed forward by sexual reproduction and then selected by nature.

However, not all sexual orientations can pass forward genes, since they are backwards or upside down with respect to reproduction. Only male plus female can make babies and participate in evolution as defined by science.

If you do the math the infinite sexual orientations of liberalism is connected to a type of creationism, and not evolution, since most cannot pass forward genes, if they stays true to their perturbation. The net affect is this is a type of creationism, induced by culture, but not by nature. This is why you are bullied, if you do not go along with the programming. If it was natural it would not need so much political manipulation and forced conformity.

To me, it is no different from the fads of body piercing, or body art both of which change the body, willfully, artificially and superficially, into something else, apart from internal DNA. It is also apart from something able to transfer forward via DNA. It is a type of man made creationism with man playing God. On the the 13 day god-,man created infinite sexes.

I can accept these choices since we are free moral agents. However, I can't accept this being sold and peddled as being based on nature, since it does not work if we leave out all the man made and artificial stuff ,and only allow future propagation to occur via the DNA. It is reinforced cult based on a type of free market fantasy creationism.

WOW! That is a really huge load of Conservative Religious Indoctrinated nonsense.


With all the yadda, yadda, yadda, your final paragraph makes your views clear - people choose to be queer. I guess you also believe people choose to be born with ambiguous genitalia.

 

[ecco]

Yet contrary to this "modern" view, the science is not there to support it. There are various ideas, many hypotheses, but no firmly established theory.,

Once again you show your wilful ignorance.

 

[Windwalker]

What science is there that represents a consensus view of the reasons for homosexuality ?

Why are you introducing the various ideas behind the reasons for homosexuality in the animal kingdom? What we are looking at is the facts of the research, which is that you do in fact see it happening all over the place in the animal kingdom, for whatever variety of reasons there may be.

This data for instance contradicts the traditionalists speculation based on the presupposition that homosexual behavior is "against nature". It is a fact that it is not against nature, despite the various ideas of why it is occurring. It is occurring, and it is not because it is a "sin" against God, or some such nonsense. They are following God's design.

There is none.

There is a consensus that is happens, which the traditionalist seems to think it only exists in humans as a result of "sin".

In speaking of modernity, the social concept of homosexuality as being a the result of inherent natural processes, though not proven, is true because the "modern" person wants it so.

What ducks or penguins do are obviously not human behaviors.

Why do you assume that other animals are not social creatures and that homosexuality plays a part in that for them as well? Humans are a social animal, and that is something we got from nature, from evolution. Sexuality amongst humans for instance, comprising of hetrosexual, homosexual, and bisexual behaviors, are NOT solely about reproduction. Sex in humans is very much tied in with social bondings, just like you see in many other animal species.

This is not "true because the modern person wants it so." It is true, because it fits the facts. The premodern notion of "sinfulness" does not fit the facts. Are Bonobo primates sinners? Did they fall from the Bonobo Garden of Eden after eating the forbidden banana? The premodern idea, clearly doesn't address the data at all. The facts don't fit the premodern theory of "sinful behavior".

There have ALWAYS been humans who operate outside the rules of the tribe, or the laws of a society, some criminal justice advocates say criminal behavior is inherent in the person. A percentage of us are born to be criminals.

First off, homosexuality is not an antisocial criminal behavior. It is not rape. Are the Bonobos raping each other against God's will when they engage in same sex relations all day long, every day? Secondly, the rules of the tribe, are not "God's law", they are social norms established out of power dynamics within the group. They are not absolutes. They are very much relative to the group, as the evidence shows when studying various groups across the planet.

The premodern person trying to make their model of truth fit the facts, will run into ridiculous contortions in order to make the data fit their "sin" models. Is God going to send a flying monkey on the last days to punish the Bonobos, burning them with fire for not following the Law he sent to them through the mouths of his Primate Prophets?

When we take a step back from these premodern systems and see the world with a more dispassionate, objective view, the "sin" model just can't explain much beyond very localized human societies, such as Victorian England where a woman showing her ankle is "sinful".

I am not equating homosexuality to criminality, I am associating the thinking some have about possible causes of human behaviors.

But you just did. You set up social norms, as somehow, magically, laws of nature which somehow homosexual should be seen as a defective arbitration, like a pathology. Not one word of that, fits the facts. Homosexual people are not dysfunctional. They are productive, healthy, happy, and normal human beings. They don't need a "cure".

So, the presupposed notion is that homosexual behavior is some how inherent in the person. Therefore, it is.

When you see it in nature functioning in the various ways that it in fact does, it sure seems inherent in nature. That's not a presupposition, like the way the premodern person presupposes it as a "sin against God". It's a conclusion based upon a studied observation of what occurs in nature, naturally.

Yet contrary to this "modern" view, the science is not there to support it. There are various ideas, many hypotheses, but no firmly established theory.,

What is established is the fact that it happens, for various reasons. There is no expectation that there needs to be one, and only one reason for it. That is some criteria that is totally manufactured, and there is no reason that science should expect to find single reasons for all animal species engaging in it.

Even in human societies, sex isn't for a single reason either. It can be about power, it can be about play, it can be about love, it can be about curiosity, and so forth. This "consensus" idea behind why it happens is something you made up to say, since there isn't one, none of it can be true. That's not how science works. That's how premodern religion works.

Science is a little more nuanced than that fabricated criteria of absolute consensus for the reasons for it. "Sin" however, as that single unifying reason offered by the premodernist, is full of nonsensical holes. Does nature teach us that sex is only for procreation? Are animals that engage in same sex behaviors, sinners?

 

[George-ananda]

You're asking about heredity and environment. I'll add a third influence; spiritual history and patterns/influences from previous lives. Many believe we are one gender for multiple lives and then switch genders for new ways of experiencing and understanding life's lessons. Switchovers can produce feelings of awkwardness.

 

[Windwalker]

The irony is atheism and liberalism believe in evolution, over creation.

I don't believe in evolution over creation. I view them as one and the same. God creates through evolution. Rather, better stated, Evolution is God creating.

Only male plus female can make babies and participate in evolution as defined by science.

While this is true, that reproduction can occur when a male mounts a female, and then the female may have that offspring and raise it with another female, rather than with the male. There are observations of this very thing occuring in some species. Human lesbian couples do this as well, where they want to have a child, but not be in a relationship with a male. Sex doesn't have to have emotional reasons for it. It can be just for the seed alone, which is the case.

If you do the math the infinite sexual orientations of liberalism

Are you saying the Bonobos are liberals?

If it was natural it would not need so much political manipulation and forced conformity.

You've just defined that conservatism is against nature, as this is exactly with what the religious right is doing, political manipulation and forced conformity. I happen to agree with you in this case, that is exactly correct.

BTW, if you look at Native American cultures, there can be many different types of these gender identities that they just accept as part of nature. They were never part of our Western cultural prudishness that you see infecting its religion and politics.

Research indicates well over 100 instances of diverse gender expression in Native American tribes at the time of early European contact. The cultural legacy of these people was nearly erased by religious indoctrination and the imposition of laws criminalizing varied sexuality and gender expression. This erasure makes discovering and discussing such a diverse heritage difficult; in many cases, the only remaining record is that of the colonizer, making occasional reference to "abominable acts" and assigning European names to behavior based on their particular moral views.

Gender and Sexuality in Native America: Many People, Many Meanings (U.S. National Park Service)​

As you can see, it is not liberalism screwing around with nature. It's conservative Western religious expression that does. It seems nature sees things the other way around here.

I can accept these choices since we are free moral agents.

Following my nature that I was born with, as a heterosexual male who has exclusive relationships with females, being homosexual does not present itself a choice to me. I'm not attracted to other males this way. I could not choose that, as that would be to go against the nature I was born with. For bisexual people however, they can choose one or the other as viable options for them. They will be the ones to see homosexuality as a choice.

For the strictly hetrosexual person, homosexuality is not a choice. And the same can be said of the strictly homosexual person, that hetroexuality is not a choice to them either. Only bisexual people could see things in terms of personal, moral choices. Hetrosexual people need to ask themselves if "choice" actually makes sense to them as a person. To me, it doesn't.

However, I can't accept this being sold and peddled as being based on nature, since it does not work if we leave out all the man made and artificial stuff ,and only allow future propagation to occur via the DNA. It is reinforced cult based on a type of free market fantasy creationism.

Other than the fact that it exists in nature, and human societies regularly, completely removed from modern politics.

 

[shmogie]

Why are you introducing the various ideas behind the reasons for homosexuality in the animal kingdom? What we are looking at is the facts of the research, which is that you do in fact see it happening all over the place in the animal kingdom, for whatever variety of reasons there may be.

This data for instance contradicts the traditionalists speculation based on the presupposition that homosexual behavior is "against nature". It is a fact that it is not against nature, despite the various ideas of why it is occurring. It is occurring, and it is not because it is a "sin" against God, or some such nonsense. They are following God's design.


There is a consensus that is happens, which the traditionalist seems to think it only exists in humans as a result of "sin".


Why do you assume that other animals are not social creatures and that homosexuality plays a part in that for them as well? Humans are a social animal, and that is something we got from nature, from evolution. Sexuality amongst humans for instance, comprising of hetrosexual, homosexual, and bisexual behaviors, are NOT solely about reproduction. Sex in humans is very much tied in with social bondings, just like you see in many other animal species.

This is not "true because the modern person wants it so." It is true, because it fits the facts. The premodern notion of "sinfulness" does not fit the facts. Are Bonobo primates sinners? Did they fall from the Bonobo Garden of Eden after eating the forbidden banana? The premodern idea, clearly doesn't address the data at all. The facts don't fit the premodern theory of "sinful behavior".


First off, homosexuality is not an antisocial criminal behavior. It is not rape. Are the Bonobos raping each other against God's will when they engage in same sex relations all day long, every day? Secondly, the rules of the tribe, are not "God's law", they are social norms established out of power dynamics within the group. They are not absolutes. They are very much relative to the group, as the evidence shows when studying various groups across the planet.

The premodern person trying to make their model of truth fit the facts, will run into ridiculous contortions in order to make the data fit their "sin" models. Is God going to send a flying monkey on the last days to punish the Bonobos, burning them with fire for not following the Law he sent to them through the mouths of his Primate Prophets?

When we take a step back from these premodern systems and see the world with a more dispassionate, objective view, the "sin" model just can't explain much beyond very localized human societies, such as Victorian England where a woman showing her ankle is "sinful".


But you just did. You set up social norms, as somehow, magically, laws of nature which somehow homosexual should be seen as a defective arbitration, like a pathology. Not one word of that, fits the facts. Homosexual people are not dysfunctional. They are productive, healthy, happy, and normal human beings. They don't need a "cure".


When you see it in nature functioning in the various ways that it in fact does, it sure seems inherent in nature. That's not a presupposition, like the way the premodern person presupposes it as a "sin against God". It's a conclusion based upon a studied observation of what occurs in nature, naturally.


What is established is the fact that it happens, for various reasons. There is no expectation that there needs to be one, and only one reason for it. That is some criteria that is totally manufactured, and there is no reason that science should expect to find single reasons for all animal species engaging in it.

Even in human societies, sex isn't for a single reason either. It can be about power, it can be about play, it can be about love, it can be about curiosity, and so forth. This "consensus" idea behind why it happens is something you made up to say, since there isn't one, none of it can be true. That's not how science works. That's how premodern religion works.

Science is a little more nuanced than that fabricated criteria of absolute consensus for the reasons for it. "Sin" however, as that single unifying reason offered by the premodernist, is full of nonsensical holes. Does nature teach us that sex is only for procreation? Are animals that engage in same sex behaviors, sinners?

You keep bringing up sin,yet I never said the word once. You are making some very large assumptions.

The issue was homosexuality, and the fact that there is no scientific theory as to why it occurs.

Your premise, that it exists, therefore, it is the result of natural processes, therefore, there is no reason to know why.

You object to my using criminal behavior as an example, OK. However you never addressed whether it is a natural because it exists in X percentage of people. No matter.

So, homosexuality doesn't harm anyone ( I agree with you) and as a sexual proclivity, it is now legal and can be practiced by anyone who chooses. It is no longer illegal. ( freedom is a good thing). Mental health experts have changed their minds and homosexuality is no longer considered some form of mental illness. It has benefits for it's adherent, akin to sexual practices of heterosexuals. It exists, therefore it is the result of an inherent natural orientation.

Lets look at another sexual practice that now is considered both illegal and aberrant. Yet it harms no one, the adherent receives sexual benefit. With minor changes to the law, and the thinking of mental health people, these folks could come out of the closet and take their place in society. They apparently have always existed, and using your criteria, should be accepted, after all they exist.

I , of course, am speaking of necrophiliacs. If people were allowed in life to sell their bodies after death to whomever they choose ( they can sell them today to body warehouses who sell them for various purposes to colleges and learning institutions), the necrophiliac could be sexually a normal part of society. With strong public health and ultimate body disposal standards, they could have their loving relationships with absolutely no possibility of harm to anyone.

We know necrophiliacs exist, therefore they are the result of natural processes, there is no reason to know why. Correct ?

 

[Jose Fly]

So what does science tell us about the determinants of homosexuality with reference to reputable research and scientific papers?

Does it really matter? The folks you listed who oppose homosexuality aren't exactly the types of people who see science as an authority, especially on matters that overlap with their beliefs. Showing scientific papers to religious conservatives is largely pointless, be they about homosexuality, evolution, or the age of the earth.

IMO, like earlier issues of bigotry it won't be a matter of changing minds as much as it'll be old people dying off and being replaced by less bigoted generations.