What are the biological and environmental determinants for sexual orientation?

[tas8831]

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

Well, they are sinners, obviously.

 

[tas8831]

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.

Well see, it is apparently only atheists and liberals that actually understand evolution and genetics - and society.*
For such folk understand a few tings that you do not seem to - such as the fact that sexuality does not dominate other people's lives like it appears to dominate yours - gay men and women often have children.
And evolution still occurs whether or not everything is selected (look up 'genetic drift').

My gosh - do you get your scientific and social knowledge from Popsicle sticks or something? Or talk radio maybe?




*I don't actually believe that, just responding in kind.

 

[shmogie]

No, I didn't. I accused you of being in error for claiming there is no genetic basis for homosexuality at all. You actually went even further and made the even more absurd claim that there's no physiologic basis for homosexuality.



From the paper:

The preponderance of evidence from sexual orientation research strongly suggests that human sexual orientation has biological underpinning and that it is tightly regulated at the molecular level. Although the “gay genes” are yet to be identified, there is little doubt that genetics plays a role in this trait.

Now, if you disagree with this assessment by the researchers who study this for a living, please offer an alternative hypothesis that accounts for all existing evidence wherein genetics play no role whatsoever.



You're confused. Birth order is hypothesized as as epigenetic effect on testosterone levels in utero (which explains why sisters are not correlated), not a genetic effect.

No, I didn't. I accused you of being in error for claiming there is no genetic basis for homosexuality at all. You actually went even further and made the even more absurd claim that there's no physiologic basis for homosexuality.



From the paper:

The preponderance of evidence from sexual orientation research strongly suggests that human sexual orientation has biological underpinning and that it is tightly regulated at the molecular level. Although the “gay genes” are yet to be identified, there is little doubt that genetics plays a role in this trait.

Now, if you disagree with this assessment by the researchers who study this for a living, please offer an alternative hypothesis that accounts for all existing evidence wherein genetics play no role whatsoever.



You're confused. Birth order is hypothesized as as epigenetic effect on testosterone levels in utero (which explains why sisters are not correlated), not a genetic effect.

I never claimed there was NO genetic effect. I said a genetic effect had not been identified. Not the same, at all. Re birth order. I pointed it out as a NON genetic factor in homosexuality, but gave YOU the option of trying to make the case for one. I used this example to rebut your claim that all the evidence points to a genetic factor at play.

"The preponderance "( in law, 51% or more) "of evidence strongly, suggests. The gay genes are yet to be identified." The gay genes ARE NOT identified. "There is little doubt that genetics play a role in this trait ".

How can something be true, when you don't know why it is true ? Is a a strong suggestion equal to a fact ?

Is an opinion a fact ? You appear to be awed by by the fact these people study this stuff professionally. That is irrelevant to me.

I look at, and analyze their words, and what they actually mean.

Here is where we are, based solely on the words of the paper you presented.

We have reasons to believe that genetics plays a role in the existence of homosexuality. Science has not identified the genes involved, nor the specific mechanism of how they influence homosexuality, but many believe this has to be the case.

There are thousands of other possible reasons for the trait. My involvement is not to offer alternative idea's, but rather is to clarify the nature of the evidence.

I simply am making the case that many believe the " homosexuals are born that way, science has proven it" scenario when science has not proven it.

Science speculates on it it based upon evidence that may show it to be true. Truth is not "strongly suggested".

When the mechanisms are clearly identified of whatever may cause homosexuality, and how these work in relation to the mind and body, and there is a consensus in science accepting this as a theory, them one can say it is true.

Some advice. The purpose of this forum is to debate idea's, good, bad, or ugly ideas. When the "YOU" statements begin, it is usually ( though not always) within the context of a subtle, or not so subtle attack on the poster.

Lets ensure that our exchanges don't sink to that level.

Posts must be carefully read to be sure the ideas of the poster are understood.

 

[sun rise]

How can something be true, when you don't know why it is true ? Is a a strong suggestion equal to a fact ?

One of the ways science works is first by observing something and then by explaining why it's true. We've seen this especially in medicine but it's also true in physics as well.

The second question can be stated as "what confidence interval should be required to determine that an observation is accurate". Typically scientists have used at 95% confidence interval but that has been challenged. So if the "strong suggestion" has a very large confidence interval, it can be taken as most likely being a fact.

The best test I know of for the genetic basis of sexual orientation are studies of identical twins raised apart. But here the literature emphasizes that the studies depend on the honesty of the participants. People lie all the time. Hooking someone up to measuring instruments and showing them gay and straight porn might be a better test.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

One thing I have noticed, is that science is getting further into their research and determining this stuff. How I know this, is that the articles online have gotten stronger and more conclusive upon viewing ones with newer dates.

 

[stvdv]

It should be natural "all humans are equal", still "many men see themselves more equal than women (or slaves, other color, other (non) religion)".

That isn't natural though. People are not equal otherwise there would be no geniuses nor people with disabilities just to point out extremes. Do not conflate application of law and principles with nature.

Hence I quoted the words "all humans are equal"

I thought it was quite obvious what I meant. Do not mix Spiritual view with material view.

 

[Left Coast]

I never claimed there was NO genetic effect. I said a genetic effect had not been identified. Not the same, at all. Re birth order. I pointed it out as a NON genetic factor in homosexuality, but gave YOU the option of trying to make the case for one. I used this example to rebut your claim that all the evidence points to a genetic factor at play.

I don't claim that genetics are the sole factor in determining sexual orientation, so that doesn't need rebuttal. There is strong evidence that epigenetic factors are also partially determinative. Birth order is one of them.

"The preponderance "( in law, 51% or more) "of evidence strongly, suggests. The gay genes are yet to be identified." The gay genes ARE NOT identified. "There is little doubt that genetics play a role in this trait ".

How can something be true, when you don't know why it is true ? Is a a strong suggestion equal to a fact ?

Do I have to understand how an internal combustion engine works to know that when I put my key in the ignition and turn it, my car turns on? No, I don't.

So it's quite possible to know that something is true, without knowing why it's true or how it works. This happens all the time.

As I explained to you already, the existing evidence cannot plausibly be explained without genetics being a factor in determining sexual orientation. Not the only factor, A factor. We can know this without knowing exactly which genes are involved by the nature of the facts we do know, e.g. monozygotic (identical) twins are more likely than dizygotic (fraternal) twins to have the same sexual orientation, gay men have more gay relatives than straight men on their mother's side, Xq28 (a region of the X chromosome, inherited from mom) allele sharing is significantly elevated among gay brothers, etc.

If you have a hypothesis that explains all this data without recourse to any genetics, please share it.

Is an opinion a fact ? You appear to be awed by by the fact these people study this stuff professionally. That is irrelevant to me.

If I have a legal problem, I'm going to ask a lawyer about it because they have the education and experience to tell me about it at an expert level. I'm much more likely to trust a lawyer's explanation of the law than a random guy on the internet. I'd be a complete fool not to.

So yes, I hold the understanding of scientists who study this topic professionally with greater esteem than a random person on the Internet.

We have reasons to believe that genetics plays a role in the existence of homosexuality. Science has not identified the genes involved, nor the specific mechanism of how they influence homosexuality, but many believe this has to be the case.

And we've now twice run through the reason why this is.

There are thousands of other possible reasons for the trait. My involvement is not to offer alternative idea's, but rather is to clarify the nature of the evidence.

But you're not clarifying, you're muddying. You're claiming we can't know something to be the case unless we know exactly the mechanics of how it works, which is simply not true.

I simply am making the case that many believe the " homosexuals are born that way, science has proven it" scenario when science has not proven it.

Science speculates on it it based upon evidence that may show it to be true. Truth is not "strongly suggested".

Scientific evidence and conclusions are always probabilistic, by nature. If you're looking for "absolute proof," you're not doing science anymore.

When the mechanisms are clearly identified of whatever may cause homosexuality, and how these work in relation to the mind and body, and there is a consensus in science accepting this as a theory, them one can say it is true.

Again, not so. We can rationally believe something is true without understanding how it works.

Some advice. The purpose of this forum is to debate idea's, good, bad, or ugly ideas. When the "YOU" statements begin, it is usually ( though not always) within the context of a subtle, or not so subtle attack on the poster.

Lets ensure that our exchanges don't sink to that level.

Posts must be carefully read to be sure the ideas of the poster are understood.

I haven't meant anything here to be a personal attack, and I apologize if you were offended by anything I said. My criticism is of your statements and ideas, not you as a person.

 

[SomeRandom]

Yes, oddities. However, as you state, they have nothing to do with what someone thinks about their sexuality.

Why would they? Sex is not the same as sexual orientation. It’s also not the same as hair colour or shoe size.
I’m sorry I’m confused. What is your point exactly?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

The question isn't about any kind of sex. It's about sexual orientation.
We are animals after all. If you ask the question why some people are gay, it might be interesting to note that homosexuality naturally occurs throughout the animal kingdom.

Because humans, in general, are further developed than animals;

That's a misnomer. Or just plain narcism.
No, we are not "further developed", in that sense.

Just like animals, we have instincts. Instincts regarding procreation, sexual preference, apetite, self-preservation, etc.

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)

It's not about behaviour. It's about sexual orientation.

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.

By studying animals, we learn about ourselves.

We are also animals.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

So does the pope of your religion.

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.

I know of plenty of gay / bi people that had kids before "coming out" (or even after).
That being said, this assumes that sexual orientation is an inherited genetic trait. Which is more then likely incorrect.

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.

So why does homosexuality occur in sheep with an 11% frequency?

You're not making any sense, and you are basing it all on a strawman. Multiple strawmen, in fact.

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.

So are you saying that homosexuality really doesn't exist and that it's just "straight" people making a "lifestyle choice" or something similar?
Please confirm, because if so, I have a follow up question.

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.

This again based on the assumption that sexual orientation is an inherited trait. Which is not the case.

 

[Shad]

Hence I quoted the words "all humans are equal"

I thought it was quite obvious what I meant. Do not mix Spiritual view with material view.

You were talking about natural and included the word natural. Your mistake.

 

[stvdv]

The question isn't about any kind of sex. It's about sexual orientation.
We are animals after all. If you ask the question why some people are gay, it might be interesting to note that homosexuality naturally occurs throughout the animal kingdom.

If you don't act how you feel you will suppress emotions and that's not healthy. So of course the question is also about "acting on how you feel".

How to determine if "it's a duck"? If it walks like a duck, has sex like a duck.... etc.... it's a duck.

 

[stvdv]

Because humans, in general, are further developed than animals;

That's a misnomer. Or just plain narcism.
No, we are not "further developed", in that sense.

You misread, misunderstand or just want and try lto find faults in what I write.

I clearly said "in general".

 

[stvdv]

By studying animals, we learn about ourselves.

We are also animals

Speak for yourself and say "I am an animal"

Fine with me. Not my opinion; but you are free to have your opinion

 

[stvdv]

Not true at all IMO.

It should be natural "all humans are equal", still "many men see themselves more equal than women (or slaves, other color, other (non) religion)".

Not natural: Arrogance, belittle others, "my way is the highway".... AND.... judging homosexuals,

That isn't natural though. People are not equal otherwise there would be no geniuses nor people with disabilities just to point out extremes. Do not conflate application of law and principles with nature.

Hence I quoted the words "all humans are equal"

I thought it was quite obvious what I meant. Do not mix Spiritual view with material view.

You were talking about natural and included the word natural. Your mistake.

Some words have multiple meanings, like the word natural. I made it triple clear.

So, obvious not my mistake. You seem to delight to find mistakes in what I write, not interested in the context, just keen on finding faults; which were not there in my reply above.

If that makes you happy, be my guest.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you don't act how you feel you will suppress emotions and that's not healthy. So of course the question is also about "acting on how you feel".

How to determine if "it's a duck"? If it walks like a duck, has sex like a duck.... etc.... it's a duck.

The question is about why one feels what one feels - which is not a choice.

Why are some attracted to both sexes?
Why are some attracted exclusively to the same sex?

If we observe this throughout the animal kingdom, it tells us something about the phenomenon.
Let's turn it around... Suppose we would NOT observe this in ANY other animal species.

Surely you can see how that would be significant to know as well, if homosexuality really was a human-only phenomenon?

But it isn't, off course. It occurs throughout the animal kingdom.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You misread, misunderstand or just want and try lto find faults in what I write.

I clearly said "in general".

And I disagreed with it, since it represents evolution as some kind of ladder, which it is not.
We are not "more evolved" then any other extant species.

We narcistically like to think of ourselves as "better" or "more evolved" because we can create satellites and space rockets, but the fact is that this is just our subjective narcistic opinion.

We evolved traits that other species don't have, sure.
Other species did the same, with other traits.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Speak for yourself and say "I am an animal"

Fine with me. Not my opinion; but you are free to have your opinion

Humans being animals, is not a matter of opinion but a matter of obective fact.
It's a matter of definition. By definition, we are animals. Just like we are eukaryotes, vertebrates, tetrapods, mammals, primates, homo sapiens.

 

[ecco]

Posts must be carefully read to be sure the ideas of the poster are understood.

Let's make it clear what your views are.

What causes homosexuality?

 

[columbus]

You accused me of being in error when I stated there was no homosexual gene.

That is an error. Stating that there is no homosexual gene is wrong. Nobody knows why humans are homosexual, but the genetic aspect is clearly established.

Therefore I wanted a clarification of what you said. I asked the question because your response to my statement was unclear.

Genetic influence may be involved. Your paper implies genetic involvement, it does not establish it.

You don't seem to understand science.
A huge amount of statistical evidence points to a genetic component of orientation. Which is not the same as identifying a "gay gene". I like green vegetables, like Brussel sprouts. I like them more than chocolate. Most people prefer chocolate. Many find brussel sprouts bitter and metallic. I don't.
I expect that there's a genetic component to my preference, as well as a non-genetic prenatal component, as well as a cultural component. I don't really know.

I just know that I prefer a green leafy salad over anything on the dessert cart. It's been that way for as long as I can remember.

Some believe that birth order is a strong determining factor. I don't see any genetic determination in that, unless the factor is a male child instead of a girl, since sisters don't seem to apply to the birth order hypothesis.

I don't think you understand what believe means in that context.

Lots of evidence suggests that orientation correlates with birth order.

Personally, I kinda break most of those determining factors.
I'm the first born of bio-mom.
I was immediately adopted by a conservative Christian couple, who seriously wanted kids.
My dad "wore the pants", Mom stayed home and watched out for us kids. When Dad said something her answer was generally something like "How high?". On the way up. The most frightening thing us kids could hear was "Just wait until your father gets home...."

Statistically speaking, I'm very unlikely to be queer.

But the truth is, I am. What I did learn was more like "Getting and staying married isn't easy. It's hard work! Lots of times you will want to dump the marriage thing and go have more fun.
Don't do that. Because, in the long run it probably won't work out."

No guarantees. The world doesn't give you any guarantees.
Tom