It comes down to the type of evidence. The scientific community has been publishing on the biological factors that shape orientation for 30+ years now. Research on other species supports the role hormones play in how species members are wired.


There's no debate. And it's not history. There's science and then there's the people with uniformed opinions making normative statements stemming from religious dogma.


Family structures have no impact on sexual orientation. Zero. It's established that biological factors influence orientation. Full stop.


Well luckily, there's a ton of research on what happens when you don't allow people to express the sexuality. A ton. None of it good. I agree that there's a need for gender reassignment to be tracked. But your point is an arguement that supports further research.


Not sure I follow here. Are you highlighting the effort to repress any evidence supporting the legitimacy of homosexuality?

Anyways, great discussion!

Also about 1/3 of all men have had sex with another man in their lifetime

I have read that too but don't believe it.

Agree. I think that it leads to additional and harmful confusion as the children begin to develop the sexuality for which they were wired since before they were born.

You are obviously on some sort of crusade. It is you who are making dogmatic statements. My short version like most issues that a socially controversial both sides could probably go on and on about evidence yada yada. I'm not interested in doing it.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

You also like to drop a bomb and watch the fireworks. Not that there is anything wrong with that ):)

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

I think this is your quote.

First off, I don't consider sociology hard science. No way to really measure what is going on in families / relationships, there are too many factors to know what causes what.

However studies have shown families with strong mother influences, i.e. the mom runs the house, are more likely to have children who identify as gay.

Also studies show that families with multiple siblings, it is more likely the youngest will be gay. They try to say this because of some worn out uterus idea. if so it may be biological. But I don't think there is strong proof of that. I suspect have several older siblings could affect how you grow up, either you picked on or doodled after. So certainly family dynamics could explain this too.

Also higher iq correlates with being gay. Is that biological, or do people with higher IQ get encouraged more to go against societal norms.

As I said, I think it is some interesting ideas, but I don't think you can really say it is biological, environmental, or a combination.

But I think statement that it is all biological does not match current data/theories. Why is it so important to you to think it is all biological?

What percent would you believe. Certainly research varies but 20-25% is supported by other research. Do you think a lot of men would share this intimate detail with you?

Socially controversial? Sure. We're talking about one group dictating how another group can express themselves, love one another, raise kids, etc.

That's why it's important.

But science isn't dogma.

Research isn't a crusade.

And only one side is presenting evidence.

Here's what we do know. People's attitudes about sex and sexual behavior aren't changing all that much. Most boys like girls, and most girls like boys. Generally, people today are simply more tolerant of differences in sexual behavior, though it's not necessarily the case that they're more accepting of those behaviors.

Most of this other stuff is an argument about the fringes of some piece of fabric, from what I've seen.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

What percent would you believe. Certainly research varies but 20-25% is supported by other research. Do you think a lot of men would share this intimate detail with you?

I would guess a lot lower than 20 - 25% but that's just my guess which is probably as accurate as many studies. I can't count how many studies have been proven wrong in my lifetime for one reason or the other, usually because someone has a certain bias to inflate or deflate figures. And who participates in these studies? I've never been asked and no one I know (not that I know a lot of people) has ever been asked, so I'm curious who they are asking.

I just take these kind of sociological questions with a big grain of salt.

Wow. Great stuff.


Agreed. Not hard science. But I'm referring to the sequence of events. Current research says that biological factors in utero determine sexual orientation.


Yes! And environmental factors definitely impact the mother. But there isn't yet the degree of understanding required to state how or to what extent. So sociology (a soft science?) could help inform (maybe?). However, it doesn't change the fact that the impact on the sexual orientation of the individual happens in utero.


I believe that research is converging toward identifying the chromosome responsible for sexual orientation. At one point it was thought that there was a abnormality at the gene level (X,Y) that resulted in homosexuality. Since then, they have moved away from that idea and think a separate gene is in play.


That's a really interesting question. I dont know the answer. I've read intelligence is nature/nurture. You are born with certain abilities and the in which you are raised informs the degree to which you'll reach your potential. Maybe that's the case with sexual orientation: you're born gay or straight and society shapes the extent to which you reach your "potential". Lots of research on folks repressing their sexuality. But I don't know either way.


It's not important to me. What is important to me is a conversation on facts. And the conclusion of the scientific community is that it's biological. If tomorrow, research demonstrated that sexual orientation was determined by societal factors, or libray readings by drag queens, I'd accept that too.

Counter to your question, I have a completely sincere question (or two) of my own: Is a biological origin a difficult thing to accept? If you're not convinced by current research, what would it take to convince you?

Of the 3 kids I'm aware of, we know 2 of the families fairly well (first-name basis w/ both parents, know what they do for a living, mingled at other social events, etc). They're all well-educated, professional, drive nice mainstream cars w/o a bunch of subversive bumper stickers, etc ~ point being, not the sort anyone would raise an eyebrow and suspect them of fomenting gender rebellion or taking their kids to a satanic drag queen reading day at the library. Shit just happened, which I'm sure was not the preferred option for any of them since at a minimum it's a big fucking hassle, but they were loving and supportive and so are the rest of their peer groups (both kids and parents). Like I said, it's a little awkward getting used to new names/pronouns, but hardly such a silly example as walking around naked at skool; nobody else would even know there was anything 'unusual' unless you already knew them before the switch.

Not this stupid argument again... So what does that make a priest, since they (theoretically, at least) abstain from all sexual behavior? (Obviously not all uphold the standard.) If there are only 2 choices, and they partake of neither, what 'orientation' does that leave?

Or, do they actually HAVE an orientation (either way), always and forever, but simply suppress acting out on it? (At least the good ones, anyway.)

Biological factors certainly have a strong influence on sexual orientation. Stress affects hormones and brain chemistry, which affect biological composition, which affect sexual orientation, so your statement is not wrong.