Nature v. Nurture: Looks like homosexuality might not be a choice after all

[Don Corleone]

Well, latest scientific evidence seems to indicate that not only is homosexuality caused by physiological sources, these can be modified.

A new study finds that both drugs and genetic manipulation can turn the homosexual behavior of fruit flies on and off within a matter of hours.
...
They also gave flies drugs to alter synapse strength. As predicted, they were able to turn fly homosexuality on and off, within hours.

Fascinating. So while I would imagine there are some who engage in homosexuality by 'choice', it would appear that in fact, it really is a biological reality. Although, I can already see the culture-war breaking out over the 'gay cure'.

[Spino]

Well, latest scientific evidence seems to indicate that not only is homosexuality caused by physiological sources, these can be modified.



Fascinating. So while I would imagine there are some who engage in homosexuality by 'choice', it would appear that in fact, it really is a biological reality. Although, I can already see the culture-war breaking out over the 'gay cure'.

Well they don't call them Fruit Flies for nothing...

[Navaros]

It is a moot point if one has biological inclinations to do homosexual things. That does not extend mean that those biological inclinations were there in the original human beings. That does not extend to mean they are natural inclinations, even if by corruption and perversions of the gene pool (caused by man-made pollution, man-made science gone awry to create things that were never meant to enter the food/air/water supply that man consumes, and the fall of man in the garden), they have in modern times become like unto natural inclinations. Furthermore, that does not justify the behaviours. Having said inclinations does not mean one is required to be a slave to them or obey them at all.

The problem in bringing evidence saying homosexuality is not a choice, is those bringing said evidence always want it to also carry the implication that it extends to justify all those things I just mentioned. But, it does not extend and does not justify any of them. Therefore, it is a moot point whether having homosexual inclinations is a choice or not.

[Lemur]

So while I would imagine there are some who engage in homosexuality by 'choice', it would appear that in fact, it really is a biological reality. Although, I can already see the culture-war breaking out over the 'gay cure'.

As far as the "choice" canard, I just never understood the argument. I never chose to be attracted to women; I'm just that way. There was never, ever a moment in my life when I had to think about it, or make any sort of rational process out of it. I just liked women from the earliest time I could think about who I wanted to play spin the bottle with.

Likewise, the gay people I've known and worked with have never discussed any moment of choice. Geez, sexual attraction is such a cocktail of hormones and chemicals, I can't imagine anything that has less to do with choice.

As far as a "gay cure," I've known several gay men who would have loved to be straight if that were possible. Offering adults a way to change their sexual preference might be popular.

Here's where it gets thorny: What if there's an in utero test for gayness? What if couples begin to abort gay babies the same way they now routinely abort fetuses with downs syndrome?

What if the "gay cure" is offered to parents of children whom they know to be gay? Where's the ethical line on that? Is it a legitimate act for a parent to pay for and get medical treatment for their child which will alter their sexuality permanently?

I don't have answers to any of these questions, but I think it's worthwhile to bat them around.

[Spino]

Ok, seriously. It's startling news but how such treatments could be devised for primates and their dizzyingly complex genetic junk is an another deal altogether. Apples and oranges or not it's pretty fascinating stuff.

[Viking]

Although, I can already see the culture-war breaking out over the 'gay cure'.

Oh well, in the end everything will be defined as an illness, and everything that makes a human a human, will have to be cured.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The possibility has always existed, but this neither proves nor disproves anything. We don't know the physiological mechanism that causes this in humans.

As far as I last checked, insects are very different from primates.

There are two main sexes - Male and Female

If you have a penis and testicles, you are usually a male

If you have a vagina and ovaries, you are usually a female

Very few people have both - they are on the fence.


Where you put your various parts is a choice, fueled by various fetishes. The blueprints are for procreation, pleasure and excretion. That is what "God" designed them for.

If they don't do one of those things, they are broken or not being used properly.

[Don Corleone]

I'm not saying that it's an open and shut case. From a religious perspective, it's perfectly 'natural' to look after one's own and tell everyone else in the world to pound sand if they need your help, but that's not exactly what God wants out of us either. From a biological perspective, as several have noted, fruitflies and primates are a LONG ways apart on the evoltionary/genetic scale.

I just find it interesting is all. It certainly lends a lot of credence to the arguments I've heard put forward by gay people that they in fact had no choice, any more than they 'chose' to have blue eyes.

And as Viking rightly points out, now we're going to get into a whole philosophical/epistemological debate over what is a 'defect' and what needs to be 'cured' versus accepted as part of the human condition.

I just think it sheds new light on the question. Nothing definitive, just illuminating.

[Xiahou]

And as Viking rightly points out, now we're going to get into a whole philosophical/epistemological debate over what is a 'defect' and what needs to be 'cured' versus accepted as part of the human condition.

Well, let's be honest. Biologically speaking, how can homosexuality not be considered a defect? The debate would be about whether it's something we could or should cure..

As to nature vs nurture, as others have pointed out- fruit flies don't tell us much one way or the other. There are frogs that can spontaneously change sex- I think it'd be a mistake to try to draw conclusions about humans based on that as well.

[Reverend Joe]

It is a moot point if one has biological inclinations to do homosexual things. That does not extend mean that those biological inclinations were there in the original human beings.

Yeah, it does.

That does not extend to mean they are natural inclinations, even if by corruption and perversions of the gene pool (caused by man-made pollution, man-made science gone awry to create things that were never meant to enter the food/air/water supply that man consumes, and the fall of man in the garden), they have in modern times become like unto natural inclinations.

What th... no. Just... no.

Furthermore, that does not justify the behaviours. Having said inclinations does not mean one is required to be a slave to them or obey them at all.

Yeah... it does.

After all, if gay people can ignore a biological inclination to be gay, why the hell can't I ignore my Tourette's syndrome? I mean, even if it's a biological condition of the nervous system, it's a behavior, and therefore a choice, right?

[PanzerJaeger]

As far as the "choice" canard, I just never understood the argument. I never chose to be attracted to women; I'm just that way. There was never, ever a moment in my life when I had to think about it, or make any sort of rational process out of it. I just liked women from the earliest time I could think about who I wanted to play spin the bottle with.

Likewise, the gay people I've known and worked with have never discussed any moment of choice. Geez, sexual attraction is such a cocktail of hormones and chemicals, I can't imagine anything that has less to do with choice.

And who would choose to be marginalized, derided, and hated all their life?

If a guy can be attracted to both men and women and chose women, he is in fact bisexual, not hetero.

Of course a lot of social factors confuse this. For example, girls who make out at parties for guy's attention. Or the long time married man with kids who gets divorced and "turns" gay. At the end of the day, though, you can't change who you are attracted to.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It is a moot point if one has biological inclinations to do homosexual things. That does not extend mean that those biological inclinations were there in the original human beings. That does not extend to mean they are natural inclinations, even if by corruption and perversions of the gene pool (caused by man-made pollution, man-made science gone awry to create things that were never meant to enter the food/air/water supply that man consumes, and the fall of man in the garden), they have in modern times become like unto natural inclinations.

Understood. However, if one subscribes to the theory of evolution, it seems unlikely that such a genetic component has developed only in homo sapiens and only within the last few millenia via mutation (natural or "induced"). The more likely expectation would be that this genetic element has been present throughout recorded history and probably a bit before -- if not all the way back to hominid predecessors.

....Having said inclinations does not mean one is required to be a slave to them or obey them at all.

Quite correct. Though limited in many ways, Freud had a good point when he argued that some of society is an effort at suppression and control of "natural" behaviors.


Xiahou:

"Homosexual" activity has been observed in a number of species. I don't think we understand it very well yet vis-a-vis its role in propagation and improvement of the species in evolutionary/genetic terms. Is it a tendency being mutated out? Does it play some other role? If it were a simple an abberation (as it seems prima facie since homosexuality in humans does not result in offspring), it should be on the decrease via self selection, yet it would seem that it has been fairly consistent throughout recorded history (though varying in open-ness from culture to culture of course).

[InsaneApache]

Try turning it around. Are you heterosexual by choice?

Just a thought.

[Ronin]

I never bought the "it´s a choice" thing.... I never choose to be attracted to girls....I just am....so I imagine that gays are the same way...like someone already pointed above...why would anyone make a choice for them selfs that bring with it prejudice and even hate from other people??

it´s not much of a surprise that you can "turn the switch" so to speak....sexual behavior is mainly all about brain chemistry..so if you can change that...you can change what team an individual plays on so to speak....but having said that we´re not fruit flies...we´re a little more complex than that...

even if we could this is a very slippery slope that I´m not sure we should go down ...so you can "cure" it...then what?....are parents allowed to screen their kids for it? maybe even test it in utero? do they have that right? what about selective abortion based on this...is that right? what is the difference between that and starting selecting people because you don´t like their hair or skin color? ..some guys played with that idea about 60 years back...you all might have heard of them....leather outfits....kinda weird marching style...their leader seemed a little light on the loafers himself.....which is kinda ironic.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I never bought the "it´s a choice" thing.... I never choose to be attracted to girls....I just am....so I imagine that gays are the same way...like someone already pointed above...why would anyone make a choice for them selfs that bring with it prejudice and even hate from other people??

People convert to different religions, people become atheists, they get tattoo's on their faces and visible parts of their bodies, they molest children, molest animals, molest inanimate objects. These things are usually at odds with the surrounding society, yet people get it into their mind that they are being "driven" to do it by something inside of them.


It's all BS until tit's proven. The question of whether you are born "heterosexual" is absurd; If you've got the equipment, there is no question. Anything else is personal choice - conscious or subconscious

[Lemur]

The question of whether you are born "heterosexual" is absurd; If you've got the equipment, there is no question. Anything else is personal choice - conscious or subconscious

So at what age did you decide to be a heterosexual? Can you remember the decision? Did anything special prompt it?

[Ice]

Well, latest scientific evidence seems to indicate that not only is homosexuality caused by physiological sources, these can be modified.



Fascinating. So while I would imagine there are some who engage in homosexuality by 'choice', it would appear that in fact, it really is a biological reality. Although, I can already see the culture-war breaking out over the 'gay cure'.

I assumed this for a while. It's probably a combination of both, simply biological, or simply a choice. It probably differs for each homosexual individual.

[Papewaio]

Well, let's be honest. Biologically speaking, how can homosexuality not be considered a defect?

Homosexuality while not making the individual sterile leads to the same outcome. Sterility is not a defect. Have to look beyond the individual gene holder and look at how the genes will pass on.

Ants are on the whole sterile.

.

[Big_John]

Ants are on the whole sterile.

everyone knows ants are sinful decadents.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The human junk is like a big sign pointing to what their role is. So clearly obvious. One of the few clearly obvious things out there.

If you were born with a tattoo that said "i am clearly meant to contribute man goo to lady goo and make a baby", would that end the debate? Because you were given that sign, in a way. It's called "your ugly parts". The other side of that sign says "you can put this anywhere there is a hole" ie; a donut, a pie, a keyhole, someones pastrami sandwich when they aren't looking, oh yea and in between a man's hams.

[Lemur]

TuffStuff, let me just see if I'm understanding you correctly:

Male and female genitals fit together, and so everyone should be heterosexual, since they are "built for it." Is that more or less what you're saying?

[ICantSpellDawg]

A car is built to drive. If you wanna join a circus, paint it rainbow and have clowns coming out of the trunk that's your business, but I doubt they put that in the manual. Regardless, few people will try to make the point that it wasn't meant to drive in the first place.

[woad&fangs]

Ok, how does this research account for bisexuality? Also, out side of my own selfish reason I don't have a problem with homosexuality. As several people have already stated love isn't exactly a choice.

For those of you who are against homosexuality, could you please explain why?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Everyone who doesn't like onions, please explain.

[Lemur]

Everyone who doesn't like onions, please explain.

Um, actually, that sorta argues against the point you've been making. As in, we all have mouths, and we can all digest onions, so why would some pervert not like onions?

[woad&fangs]

I happen to like onions.

Also, are you saying that people should only have sex for procreation?

Edit: go Lemur!!!

[Ronin]

Everyone who doesn't like onions, please explain.

I might not like onions...but I don´t think someone else is wrong or sinful for liking onions.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Um, actually, that sorta argues against the point you've been making. As in, we all have mouths, and we can all digest onions, so why would some pervert not like onions?

Well played my friend. The onion arguement is much better used for the homophobia claim; "I dont like onions, that doesn't make me afraid of them". That is why I love arguing with the figurative; Easy wins and loses.

I honestly don't know. I will change my mind in the face of facts, not the gradual slide of public perception. Ive always believed that homosexuality was a mental illness, but it was stricken from the DSM years ago for political reasons. It fits the mold.

[Big_John]

Ive always believed that homosexuality was a mental illness, but it was stricken from the DSM years ago for political reasons. It fits the mold.

you just said you thought it was a choice..

so is it a choice or a mental illness? or is it a rare case of a voluntary mental illness?

[woad&fangs]

I believe that Neo-Conservatism is a mental disease but it has been renamed as a "political party" for political reasons.

Where would you draw the line as to what is or is not a mental illness? Do people with a whip fetish have a mental illness? Do angry people have a mental illness? What about ditsy people?

It all comes down to what is socially acceptable. That is why I'm asking why people are so against homosexuality. Many people are against it because "it isn't Christian" or whatever. Well, Jesus also said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".